THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


RECENT 


SPEECHES 


ADDRESSES. 


CHARLES    SUMNER. 


Such  busy  multitudes  I  fain  would  see 
Stand  upon  Free  Soil  with  a  people  free. 

GOETHE'S  FAUST. 

Nihil  autcm  glor Josius  lib«rtatc,  praetor  virtutcm,  si  tamen  libertaa  recto 
»  Tlrtute  sejongitur. — JOHN  OF  SAUSBTOT. 


BOSTON: 

HIGGINS    AND     BRADLEY, 

20  WASHIHGTON  STREET. 
1856. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1856,  by 

TlCKNOE  AND  FlELDS. 
In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


CAMBRIDGE: 
STEREOTYPED    AND  PWSTED    BY  THURSTON  AND    TOBBY. 


»"•  s' * 

•   *     * 


4 15".  6 


CONTENTS. 


ACCEPTANCE  OF  THE  OFFICE  OF  SENATOR  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES.  LETTER  TO  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS, 
14TH  MAY,  1851 1-5 

WELCOME  TO  KOSSUTH.  SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES,  10TH  DEC.,  1851 6-14 

JUSTICE  TO  THE  LAND  STATES  AND  POLICY  OF  ROADS.  SPEECHES 
IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  ON  THE  IOWA  RAIL- 
ROAD BILL,  27TH  JAN.,  17lH  FEB.,  AND  16TH  MARCH, 

1852 15-43 

CHEAP  OCEAN  POSTAGE.  SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES  ON  HIS  RESOLUTION  IN  RELATION  TO  CHEAP  OCEAN 
POSTAGE,  8TH  MARCH,  1852 44-47 

THE  PARDONING  POWER  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.    ARGUMENT  SUB-..V 
MITTED   TO  THE  PRESIDENT   14TH   MAY,  1852,  UPON  TH<  "\ 
APPLICATION  FOR  THE   PARDON  OF   DRAYTON  AND  SAYRES,V_X 
DETAINED   IN   PRISON   AT   WASHINGTON   FOR   HELPING   THE 
ESCAPE  OF  SLAVES 48-61 

TRIBUTE  TO  MR  RANTOUL.  SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  DEATH  OF  HON.  ROBERT  RANTOUL, 
JR.,  QTH  AUGUST,  1852 62-68 

•fV   x 

FREEDOM     NATIONAL  ;     SLAVERY   SECTIONAL.      SPEECH     IN    THB  '\ 

SENATE   OF    THE    UNITED    STATES,    26TH   AUGUST,    1852,   ONy        ' 
HIS  MOTION  TO  REPEAL  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  BILL  .      69  - 171 


461881 


VI  CONTENTS.  ^ 

TRIBUTE  TO  MR.  DOWNING.  SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES,  IN  FAVOR  OF  AN  ALLOWANCE  TO  THE 
WIDOW  OF  THE  LATE  ANDREW  J.  DOWNING,  26lH  AUGUST, 

1852 /*'.   -...-...    172-174 

THE  PARTY  OF  FREEDOM  ;  ITS  NECESSITY  AND  PRACTICABIL- 
ITY. SPEECH  AT  THE  STATE  CONVENTION  OF  THE  FREE 

SOIL  PARTY  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  HELD  AT  LOWELL,  IGlH 
SEPT.,  1852 175-183 

CIVIL  SUPERINTENDENTS  OF  ARMORIES.  SPEECH  IN  THE  SEN- 
ATE OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  PROPOSITION  TO 
CHANGE  THE  SUPERINTENDENTS  OF  ARMORIES.  23o  FEB. 

1853 184-187 

AGAINST  SECRECY  IN  THE  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  SENATE. 
SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE 
PROPOSITION'  TO  LIMIT  THE  SECRET  SESSIONS  OF  THE  SENATE, 

GTH  APRIL,  1853       .     .    'V  V  .;-;..     .     .     188-190 

THE  POWERS  OF  A  STATE  OVER  THE  MILITIA.  SPEECHES  ON 
THE  MILITIA  GENERALLY  AND  A  COLORED  MILITIA,  IN  THE 
CONVENTION  TO  REVISE  AND  AMEND  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF 
MASSACHUSETTS,  21ST  AND  22o  JUNE,  1853  .  191-202 

THE  REPRESENTATIVE  SYSTEM  AND  ITS  PROPER  BASIS.  SPEECH 
ON  THE  PROPOSITION  TO  AMEND  THE  BASIS  OF  THE  HOUSE 
OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  IN  the  CONVEN- 
TION TO  REVISE  AND  AMEND  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THAT 

STATE,  7in  JULY,  1853 203  -  232 

BILLS  OF  RIGHTS  ;  THEIR  HISTORY  AND  POLICY.  SPEECH  O-N 
THE  REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS, 
IN  THE  CONVENTION  TO  REVISE  AND  AMEND  THE  CONSTITU- 
TION OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  25lH  JULY,  1853  .  233-241 

STNGER-POINT  FROM  PLYMOUTH  ROCK.  SPEECH  AT  THE  PLYM- 
OUTH FESTIVAL  IN  COMMEMORATION  OF  THE  EMBARKATION 
OF  THE  PILGRIMS,  1ST  AUGUST,  1853  .  .  '.  242-248 


CONTENTS.  Vll 

THE  LANDMARK  OF  FREEDOM  ;  FREEDOM  NATIONAL.  SPEECH 
IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  AGAINST  THE  RE- 
PEAL OF  THE  MISSOURI  PROHIBITION  OF  SLAVERY  NORTH  OF 
36°  30'  IN  THE  NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS  BILL,  21ST  FEB. 

1854 249-314 

FINAL  PROTEST  FOR  HIMSELF  AND  THE  CLERGY  OF  NEW  ENG- 
LAND AGAINST  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS.  SPEECH 
IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  NIGHT  OF 
THE  FINAL  PASSAGE  OF  THE  NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS  BILL, 

25TH  MAY,  1854 315-326 

DEFENCE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS.  SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES,  ON  THE  BOSTON  MEMORIAL  FOR  THE  REPEAL 
OF  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  BILL,  AND  IN  REPLY  TO  MESSRS. 
JONES,  OF  TENNESSEE,  BUTLER,  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA,  AND 
MASON,  OF  VIRGINIA,  26TH  AND  28lH  JUNE  .  327  -  371 

STRUGGLE  FOR  THE  REPEAL  OF  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  BILL.    IN  THE  N/V 
SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  31ST  JULY,  1854,     372  -  387^ 

THE  DUTIES  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  AT  THE  PRESENT  CRISIS.  SPEECH 
BEFORE  THE  REPUBLICAN  STATE  CONVENTION  AT  WORCES- 
TER, 7TH  SEPTEMBER,  1854 388-411 

THE  POSITION  AND  DUTIES  OF  THE  MERCHANT  ;  ILLUSTRATED 
BY  THE  LIFE  OF  GRANVILLE  SHARP.  AN  ADDRESS  BEFORE 
THE  MERCANTILE  LIBRARY  ASSOCIATION  OF  BOSTON,  ON  THE 
EVENING  OF  15lH  NOV.,  1854 412-449 


THE   DEMANDS    OF   FREEDOM REPEAL   OF   THE   FUGITIVE   SLAVE 

BILL.       SPEECH     IN     THE     SENATE     OF    THE     UNITED     STATES 
AGAINST  MR.    TOUCEY's   BILL,  AND   FOR   THE    REPEAL   OF   THE 
FUGITIVE   SLAVE  BILL,   23o   FEB.,    1855     .       .       .      450-467 


E       \  / 

:X 


WAGES  OF  SEAMEN  IN  CASE  OF  WRECK.  SPEECH  IN  THE  SEN- 
ATE OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  INTRODUCING  A  BILL  TO 
SECURE  WAGES  TO  SEAMEN  IN  CASE  OF  WRECK,  28TH  FEB., 

1855  ,     468-474 


VU1  CONTENTS. 

THK  ANTI-SLAVERY  ENTERPRISE  J  ITS  NECESSITY,  PRACTICABIL- 
ITY AND  DIGNITY,  WITH  GLIMPSES  AT  THE  SPECIAL  DUTIES 
OF  THE  NORTH.  ADDRESS  BEFORE  THE  PEOPLE  OF  NEW  YORK, 
AT  THE  METROPOLITAN  THEATRE,  9th  MAY,  1855  475  -  521 

THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS THE  OUT- 
RAGES IN  KANSAS THE  DIFFERENT  POLITICAL  PARTIES 

THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY.      SPEECH  AT  FANEUIL  HALL,  BOSTON, 
ON   THE   EVENING   OF  2o   NOV.,  1855  .       .       .      522-562 


ACCEPTANCE    OF  THE    OFFICE   OF   SENATOR   OF 
THE   UNITED   STATES. 

•» 

LETTER    TO    THE    LEGISLATURE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS, 
14TH    MAY,    1851. 

Read  in  the  Senate  by  Hon.  Henry  Wilson,  President,  and  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  by  Hon.  N.  P.  Banks,  Speaker. 


FELLOW-CITIZENS  OF  THE  SENATE  AND  HOUSE  OF 
REPRESENTATIVES  : 

I  HAVE  received  by  the  hands  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Commonwealth  a  certificate,  that,  by  concurrent 
votes  of  the  two  branches  of  the  Legislature,  namely, 
by  the  Senate,  on  the  22d  day  of  January,  and  by  the 
House  of  Representatives,  on  the  24th  day  of  April,  I 
was  duly  elected,  in  conformity  to  the  provisions  of 
the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  the  United  States,  a 
Senator  to  represent  the  Commonwealth  of  Massa- 
chusetts, in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
term  of  six  years,  commencing  on  the  4th  day  of 
March,  1851. 

If  I  were  to  follow  the  customary  course,  I  should 
receive  this  in  silence.  But  the  protracted  and  unpre- 
cedented contest  which  ended  in  my  election,  —  the 
1 


2  ACCEPTANCE    OF    THE    OFFICE    OF 

interest  it  awakened,  —  the  importance  universally 
conceded  to  it,  —  the  ardor  of  opposition  and  the 
constancy  of  support  which  it  aroused,  —  also  the 
principles,  which  more  than  .ever  among  us,  it  brought 
into  discussion,  seem  to  justify,  what  my  own  feelings 
irresistibly  prompt,  a  departure  from  this  rule.  If, 
beyond  these  considerations,  any  apology  may  be 
needed  for  thus  directly  addressing  the  Legislature, 
I  may  find  it  in  the  example  of  an  illustrious  prede- 
cessor, whose  clear  and  venerable  name  will  be  a 
sufficient  authority.* 

The  trust  conferred  on  me  is  one  of  the  most 
weighty  which  a  citizen  can  receive.  It  concerns 
the  grandest  interests  of  our  own  Commonwealth, 
and  also  of  the  Union  whereof  we  are  an  indissoluble 
part.  Like  every  post  of  eminent  duty,  it  is  a  post 
of  eminent  honor.  A  personal  ambition,  such  as  I 
cannot  confess,  might  be  satisfied  to  possess  it.  But 
when  I  think  what  it  requires,  I  am  obliged  to 
say,  that  its  honors  are  all  eclipsed  in  my  sight  by 
its  duties. 

Your  appointment  finds  me  in  a  private  station, 
with  which  I  am  entirely  content.  But  this  is  not 
all.  For  the  first  time  in  my  life,  I  am  noAV  called 
to  political  office.  With  none  of  the  experience  so 
amply  possessed  by  others,  to  smooth  the  way  of 
labor,  I  might  well  hesitate.  But  I  am  cheered  by 
the  generous  confidence,  which,  throughout  a  length- 
ened contest,  persevered  in  sustaining  me,  and  by 
the  conviction  that,  amidst  all  seeming  differences  of 
party,  the  sentiments,  of  which  I  am  the  known  advo- 

*  John  Quincy  Adams. 


SENATOR    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES.  3 

cate,  and  which  led  to  my  original  selection  as  a 
candidate,  are  dear  to  the  hearts  of  a  large  majority 
of  the  people  of  this  Commonwealth.  I  derive,  also, 
a  most  grateful  consciousness  of  personal  indepen- 
dence from  the  circumstance,  which  I  deem  it  frank 
and  proper  thus  publicly  to  declare  and  place  on 
record,  that  this  office  comes  to  me,  unsought  and 
unde  sired. 

Acknowledging  the  right  of  my  country  to  the 
service  of  her  sons  wherever  she  chooses  to  place 
them,  and  with  a  heart  full  of  gratitude  that  a  sacred 
cause  has  been  permitted  to  triumph  through  me,  I 
now  accept  the  post  of  Senator. 

I  accept  it  as  the  servant  of  Massachusetts  ;  mindful 
of  the  sentiments  solemnly  uttered  by  her  successive 
Legislatures ;  of  the  genius  which  inspires  her  history ; 
and  of  the  men,  her  perpetual  pride  and  ornament, 
who  breathed  into  her  that  breath  of  Liberty,  which 
early  made-  her  an  example  to  her  sister  States.  In 
such  a  service,  the  way,  though  new  to  my  footsteps, 
will  be  illumined  by  lights  which  cannot  be  missed. 

I  accept  it  as  the  servant  of  the  Union ;  bound  to 
study  and  maintain,  with  equal  patriotic  care,  the 
interests  of  all  parts  of  our  country ;  to  discounte- 
nance every  effort  to  loosen  any  of  those  ties  by 
which  our  fellowship  of  States  is  held  in  fraternal 
company ;  and  to  oppose  all  sectionalism,  whether  it 
appear  in  unconstitutional  efforts  by  the  North  to 
carry  so  great  a  boon  as  Freedom  into  the  slave 
States,  or  in  unconstitutional  efforts  by  the  South, 
aided  by  Northern  allies,  to  carry  the  sectional  evil 
of  Slavery  into  the  free  States;  or  in  whatsoever 
efforts  it  may  make  to  extend  the  sectional  domination 


4  ACCEPTANCE    OF    THE    OFFICE    OF 

of  Slavery  over  the  National  Government.  —  With 
me  the  Union  is  twice-blessed ;  first,  as  the  powerful 
guardian  of  the  repose  and  happiness  of  thirty-one 
sovereign  States,  clasped  by  the  endearing  name  of 
country ;  and  next,  as  the  model  and  beginning  of 
that  all-embracing  Federation  of  States,  by  which 
unity,  peace  and  concord  will  finally  be  organized 
among  the  nations.  Nor  do  I  believe  it  possible, 
whatever  may  be  the  delusion  of  the  hour,  that  any 
part  thereof  can  be  permanently  lost  from  its  well- 
compacted  bulk.  E  Pluribus  Unum  is  stamped  upon 
the  national  coin,  the  national  territory,  and  the 
national  heart.  Though  composed  of  many  parts 
united  into  one,  the  Union  is  separable  only  by  a 
crash  which  shall  destroy  the  whole. 

Entering  now  upon  the  public  service,  I  venture  to 
bespeak  for  what  I  may  do  or  say  that  candid  judg- 
ment, which  I  trust  always  to  extend  to  others,  but 
which  I  am  well  aware  the  prejudices  of.  party  too 
rarely  concede.  I  may  fail  in  ability ;  but  not  in 
sincere  efforts  to  promote  the  general  weal.  In  the 
conflicts  of  opinion,  natural  to  the  atmosphere  of 
liberal  institutions,  I  may  err ;  but  I  trust  never  to 
forget  the  prudence  which  should  temper  firmness,  or 
the  modesty  which  becomes  the  consciousness  of  right. 
If  I  decline  to  recognize  as  my  guides  any  of  the  men 
of  to-day,  I  shall  feel  safe,  while  I  follow  the  master 
principles  which  the  Union  was  established  to  secure, 
and  lean  for  support  on  the  great  triumvirate  of 
American  Freedom  —  Washington,  Franklin  and  Jef- 
ferson. And  since  true  politics  are  simply  morals 
applied  to  public  affairs,  I  shall  find  constant  assist- 
ance from  those  everlasting  rules  of  right  and  wrong, 


SENATOR    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES.  5 

which  are  a  law  alike  to  individuals  and  communities : 
nay,  which  constrain  the  omnipotent  God  in  self- 
imposed,  bonds. 

Let  me  borrow,  in  conclusion,  the  language  of 
another :  "  I  see  my  duty ;  that  of  standing  up  for 
the  liberties  of  my  country;  and  whatever  difficulties 
and  discouragements  lie  in  my  way,  I  dare  not  shrink 
from  it ;  and  I  rely  on  that  Being,  who  has  not  left  to 
us  the  choice  of  duties,  that  whilst  I  shall  conscien- 
tiously discharge  mine,  I  shall  not  finally  lose  my 
reward."  These  are  the  words  of  Washington,  uttered 
in  the  early  darkness  of  the  American  Revolution. 
The  rule  of  duty  is  the  same  for  the  lowly  and  the 
great ;  and  I  hope  it  may  not  seem  presumptuous  in 
one  so  humble  as  myself  to  adopt  his  determination, 
and  to  avow  his  confidence. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  fellow-citizens, 
With  sincere  regard, 

Your  faithful  friend  and  servant, 

CHARLES   SUMNER. 
BOSTON,  May  14,  1851. 


-1* 


WELCOME  TO  KOSSUTH. 

SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  10TH  DEC.  1851. 


MR.  SEWARD,  of  New  York,  brought  forward  in  the 
Senate  the  following  joint  resolution  : 

"  Be  it  Resolved,  <f-c.,  That  Congress,  in  the  name  and 
behalf  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  give  to  Louis 
Kossuth  a  cordial  welcome  to  the  capital  and  to  the  coun- 
try, and  that  a  copy  of  this  resolution  be  transmitted  to 
him  by  the  President  of  the  United  States." 

December  9th,  Mr.  BERRIEN,  of  Georgia,  addressed  the 
Senate  at  length  in  opposition  to  any  action  by  Congress, 
and,  in  closing  his  speech,  moved  the  following  amend- 
ment : 

"  And  be  it  further  Resolved,  That  the  welcome  thus 
afforded  to  Louis  Kossuth  be  extended  to  his  associates  who 
have  landed  on  our  shores ;  but  while  welcoming  these 
Hungarian  patriots  to  an  asylum  in  our  country,  and  to 
the  protection  which  our  laws  do  and  always  will  afford  to 
them,  it  is  due  to  candor  to  declare  that  it  is  not  the  pur- 
pose of  Congress  to  depart  from  the  settled  policy  of  this 
Government,  which  forbids  all  interference  with  the  domes- 
tic concerns  of  other  nations." 

December  10th,  on  motion  of  Mr.  SEWARD,  the  Senate 
proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  special  order,  being 
his  resolution  of  welcome  to  Kossuth. 

MB.  SUMNEB  then  addressed  the  Senate  as  fol- 
lows : 

Mr.  President :  —  Words  are  sometimes  things  ; 
and  I  cannot  disguise  from  myself  that  the  resolution 

[6] 


WELCOME    IO    KOSSUTH.  7 

in  honor  of  Louis  Kossuth,  now  pending  before  the 
Senate,  when  finally  passed,  will  be  an  act  of  no  small 
significance  in  the  history  of  our  country.  The  Sen- 
ator from  Georgia  [Mr.  Berrien]  was  right  when  he 
said  that  it  was  no  unmeaning  compliment.  Beyond 
its  immediate  welcome  to  an  illustrious  stranger,  it 
will  help  to  combine  and  direct  the  sentiments  of  our 
own  people  everywhere  ;  it  will  inspire  all  in  other 
lands  who  are  engaged  in  the  contest  for  freedom ;  it 
will  challenge  the  disturbed  attention  of  despots  ;  and 
it  will  become  a  precedent  whose  importance  will 
grow,  in  the  thick-coming  events  of  the  future,  with 
the  growing  might  of  the  Republic.  In  this  view,  it 
becomes  us  to  consider  well  what  we  do,  and  to  un- 
derstand the  grounds  of  our  conduct. 

For  myself,  I  am  prepared  to  vote  for  it  without 
amendment  or  condition  of  any  kind,  and  on  reasons 
which  seem  to  me  at  once  obvious  and  conclusive.  In 
assigning  these  I  shall  be  brief;  and  let  me  say  that, 
novice  as  I  am  in  this  hall,  and,  indeed,  in  all  legisla- 
tive halls,  nothing  but  my  strong  interest  in  the  ques- 
tion as  now  presented,  and  a  hope  to  say  something 
directly  upon  it,  could  prompt  me  thus  early  to  mingle 
in  these  debates. 

The  case  seems  to  require  a  statement,  rather  than 
an  argument.  As  I  understand,  the  last  Congress 
requested  the  President  to  authorize  the  employment 
of  one  of  our  public  vessels  to  receive  and  convey 
Louis  Kossuth  to  the  United  States.  That  honorable 
service  was  performed,  under  the  express  direction  of 
the  President,  and  in  pursuance  of  the  vote  of  Con- 
gress, by  one  of  the  best-appointed  ships  of  our  navy 
—  the  steam-frigate  Mississippi.  Far  away  from  our 


8  WELCOME    TO    KOSSUTH. 

country,  in  foreign  waters,  in  the  currents  of  the  Bos- 
phorus,  the  Hungarian  chief,  passing  from,  his  Turkish 
exile,  first  pressed  the  deck  of  this  gallant  vessel ;  first 
came  under  the  protection  of  our  national  flag,  and, 
for  the  first  timo  in  his  life,  rested  beneath  the  ensign 
of  an  unquestioned- Republic.  From  that  moment  he 
became  our  guest.  The  Republic  —  which,  thus  far, 
he  had  seen  only  in  delighted  dream  or  vision — was 
now  his  host;  and  though  this  relation  was  inter- 
rupted for  a  few  weeks  by  his  wise  and  brilliant  visit 
to  England,  yet  its  duties  and  its  pleasures,  as  I  con- 
fidently submit,  are  not  yet  ended.  The  liberated 
exile  is  now  at  our  gates.  Sir,  we  cannot  do  things 
by  halves  ;  and  the  hospitality  thus,  under  the  auspices 
of  Congress,  begun,  must,  under  the  auspices  of  Con- 
gress, be  continued.  The  hearts  of  the  people  are 
already  open  to  receive  him ;  Congress  cannot  turn  its 
back  upon  him. 

But  I  would  join  in  this  welcome,  not  merely  be- 
cause it  is  essential  to  complete  and  crown  the  work 
of  the  last  Congress,  but  because  our  guest  deserves  it 
at  our  hands.  The  distinction  is  great,  I  know ;  but 
it  is  not  so  great  as  his  deserts.  He  deserves  it  as 
the  early,  constant,  and  incorruptible  champion  of  the 
Liberal  Cause  in  Hungary,  who,  while  yet  young,  with 
Tiaconscious  power,  girded  himself  for  the  contest,  and 
by  a  series  of  masterly  labors,  with  voice  and  pen,  in 
parliamentary  debates,  and  in  the  discussions  of  the 
press,  breathed  into  his  country  the  breath  of  life. 
He  deserves  it  by  the  great  principles  of  true  democ- 
racy which  he  caused  to  be  recogni/ed  —  representa- 
tion of  the  people  without  distinction  of  rank  or  birth, 
and  equality  before,  the  law.  He  deserves  it  by  the 


WELCOME    1O    KOSSUTH.  9 

trials  he  has  undergone,  in  prison  and  in  exile.  He 
deserves  it  by  the  precious  truth,  which  he  now  so 
eloquently  proclaims,  of  the  Fraternity  of  Nations. 

As  I  regard  his  course,  I  am  filled  with  reverence 
and  awe.  I  see  in  him,  more  than  in  any  other  living 
man,  the  power  which  may  be  exerted  by  a  single, 
earnest,  honest  soul,  in  a  noble  cause.  In  himself  he 
is  more  than  a  whole  cabinet  —  more  than  a  whole 
army.  I  watch  him  in  Hungary,  while,  like  Carnot 
in  France,  he  "  organizes  victory  ;  "  I  follow  him  in 
exile  to  distant  Asiatic  Turkey,  and  there  find  him, 
with  only  a  scanty  band  of  attendants,  in  weakness 
and  confinement,  still  the  dread  of  despots ;  I  sympa- 
thize with  him  in  his  happy  release ;  and  now,  as  he 
comes  more  within  the  sphere  of  our  immediate  obser- 
vation, amazement  fills  us  all  in  the  contemplation  of 
his  career,  while  he  proceeds  from  land  to  land,  from 
city  to  city,  and,  with  words  of  matchless  power, 
seems  at  times  the  fiery  sword  of  freedom,  and  then 
the  trumpet  of  resurrection  to  the  nations —  Tuba 
mirum  spargens  sonum. 

I  know  not  how  others  have  been  impressed ;  but  I 
can  call  to  mind  no  incident  in  history  —  no  event  of 
peace  or  war  —  certainly  none  of  war  —  more  strongly 
calculated  —  better  adapted  —  to  touch  and  exalt  the 
imagination  and  the  heart  than  his  recent  visit  to 
England.  He  landed  on  the  southern  coast,  not  far 
from  where  William  of  Normandy,  nearly  eight  cen- 
turies ago,  had  landed ;  not  far  from  where,  nineteen 
centuries  ago,  Julius  Csesar  had  landed  also  ;  but  Wil- 
liam on  the  field  of  Hastings,  and  Csesar,  in  his  adven- 
turous expedition,  made  no  conquest  comparable  in 
grandeur  to  that  achieved  by  the  unarmed  and  unat- 


10  WELCOME    TO    KOSSUTH. 

tended  Hungarian.  A  multitudinous  people,  outnum- 
bering far  the  armies  of  those  earlier  times,  was  subdued 
by  his  wisdom  and  eloquence  ;  and  this  exile, — proceed- 
ing from  place  to  place,  —  traversing  the  country,  — 
at  last,  in  the  very  heart  of  the  Kingdom,  threw  down 
the  gauntlet  of  the  Republic.  "Without  equivocation, 
amidst  the  supporters  of  monarchy,  in  the  shadow  of 
a  lofty  throne,  he  proclaimed  himself  a  republican,  and 
proclaimed  the  republic  as  his  cherished  aspiration  for 
Hungary.  And  yet,  amidst  the  excitements  of  this 
unparalleled  scene,  with  that  discretion  which  I  pray 
may  ever  attend  him,  as  a  good  angel  —  the  ancient 
poet  aptly  tells  us  that  no  Divinity  is  absent  where 
Prudence  is  present  —  he  forbore  all  suggestion  of 
interference  with  the  existing  institutions  of  the  coun- 
try whose  guest  he  was,  recognizing  that  vital  principle 
of  self-government,  by  virtue  of  which  every  State 
chooses  for  itself  the  institutions  and  rulers  which  it 
prefers. 

Such  a  character,  thus  grandly  historic  —  a  living 
Wallace  —  a  living  Tell  —  I  had  almost  said  a  liv- 
ing 'Washington  —  deserves  our  homage.  Nor  am  I 
tempted  to  ask  if  there  be  any  precedent  for  the  reso- 
lution now  under  consideration.  There  is  a  time  for 
all  things  ;  and  the  time  has  come  for  us  to  make  a 
precedent  in  harmony  with  his  unprecedented  career. 
The  occasion  is  fit ;  the  hero  is  near ;  let  us  speak  our 
welcome.  It  is  true  that,  unlike  Lafayette,  he  has 
never  directly  served  our  country ;  but  I  cannot  admit 
that  on  this  account  he  is  less  worthy.  Like  Lafay- 
ette, he  perilled  life  and  all ;  like  Lafayette,  he  has 
done  penance  in  an  Austrian  dungeon  ;  like  Lafayette, 
he  has  served  the  cause  of  freedom ;  and  whosoever 


WELCOME     TO     KOSSTTTH.  11 

serves  this  cause,  wheresoever  he  may  be,  in  whatever 
land,  is  entitled,  according  to  his  works,  to  the  grati- 
tude of  every  true  American  bosom  —  of  every  true 
lover  of  mankind. 

The  resolution  before  us  commends  itself  by  its 
simplicity  and  completeness.  In  this  respect,  it  seems 
to  me  preferable  to  that  of  the  Senator  from  Illinois 
[Mr.  Shields] ;  nor  is  it  obnoxious  to  objections 
urged  against  that  of  the  Senator  from  Mississippi 
[Mr.  Foote]  ;  nor  do  I  see  that  it  can  give  any  just 
umbrage,  in  our  diplomatic  relations,  even  to  the  sen- 
sitive representative  of  the  house  of  Austria.  Though 
we  have  the  high  authority  of  the  President,  in  his 
message,  for  styling  our  guest  "  Governor"  —  a  title 
which  seems  to  imply  the  de  facto  independence  of 
Hungary  at  the  very  time  when  our  Government 
declined  to  acknowledge  it  —  the  resolution  avoids 
this  difficulty,  and  speaks  of  him  without  title  of  any 
kind  —  simply  as  a  private  citizen.  As  such,  it  offers 
him  a  welcome  to  the  capital  and  to  the  country. 

The  comity  of  nations  I  respect.  To  the  behests  of 
the  law  of  nations  I  profoundly  bow.  As  in  our  do- 
mestic affairs,  all  acts  are  brought  to  the  Constitution, 
as  to  a  touchstone,  so  in  our  foreign  affairs,  all  acts 
are  brought  to  the  touchstone  of  the  law  of  nations  — 
that  supreme  law,  the  world's  collected  will,  which 
overarches  the  Grand  Commonwealth  of  Christian 
States.  What  that  forbids,  I  forbear  to  do.  But  no 
text  of  this  voluminous  code,  no  commentary,  no  gloss, 
can  be  found  which  forbids  us  to  welcome  any  exile 
of  freedom. 

Looking  at  this  resolution  in  its  various  lights  —  as 
a  carrying  out  of  the  act  of  the  last  Congress ;  as  justly 


12  WELCOME    TO    KOSSUTH. 

due  to  the  exalted  character  of  our  guest ;  and  aS 
proper  in  form  and  consistent  with  the  law  of  nations 
—  it  seems  impossible  to  avoid  the  conclusion  in  its 
favor.  On  its  merits  it  would  naturally  be  adopted. 
And  here  I  might  stop. 

But  an  appeal  has  been  made  against  the  resolution, 
on  grounds  which  seem  to  me  extraneous  and  irrele- 
vant. It  has  been  attempted  to  involve  it  with  the 
critical  question  of  intervention  by  our  country  in 
European  affairs  ;  and  recent  speeches  in  England  and 
New  York  have  been  adduced  to  show  that  such  in- 
tervention is  sought  by  our  guest.  It  is  sufficient  to 
say  in  reply  to  this  suggestion,  introduced  by  the 
Senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Berrien]  with  a  skill 
which  all  might  envy  —  and  also  by  the  Senator  from 
New  Jersey  [Mr.  Miller]  —  that  no  such  interven- 
tion is  promised  or  implied  by  the  resolution.  It  does 
not  appear  on  the  face  of  the  resolution ;  it  is  not  in 
any  way  suggested  by  the  resolution,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly. It  can  only  be  found  in  the  imagination,  the 
anxieties,  or  the  fears  of  Senators  !  It  is  a  mere 
ghost,  and  not  a  reality.  As  such  we  may  dismiss  it. 
But  I  feel  strongly  on  this  point,  and  desire  to  go 
further.  Here,  again,  I  shall  be  brief;  for  the  occa- 
sion allows  me  to  state  conclusions  only,  and  not 
arguments. 

While  thus  warmly  —  with  my  heart  in  my  hand  — 
joining  in  this  tribute,  I  wish  to  be  understood  as  in 
no  respect  encouraging  any  idea  of  belligerent  interven- 
tion in  European  affairs.  Such  a  system  would  have 
in  it  no  element  of  just  self-defence,  and  it  would 
open  phials  of  perplexities  and  ills  which  I  trust  our 
country  will  never  be  called  to  affront.  But  I  incul- 


WELCOME    TO    KOSSUIH.  13 

cate  no  frigid  isolation.  God  forbid  that  we  should 
ever  close  our  ears  to  the  cry  of  distress,  or  cease  to 
swell  with  indignation  at  the  steps  of  tyranny  !  In 
the  wisdom  of  Washington  we  may  find  perpetual 
counsel.  Like  Washington,  in  his  eloquent  words  to 
the  Minister  of  the  French  Directory,  I  would  offer 
sympathy  and  God-speed  to  all,  in  every  land,  who 
struggle  for  Human  Rights ;  but,  sternly  as  Wash- 
ington on  another  occasion,  against  every  pressure, 
against  all  popular  appeals,  against  all  solicitations, 
against  all  blandishments,  I  would  uphold  with  steady 
hand  the  peaceful  neutrality  of  the  country.  Could  I 
now  approach  our  mighty  guest,  I  would  say  to  him, 
with  the  respectful  frankness  of  a  friend,  "  Be  content 
with  the  outgushing  sympathy  which  you  now  so 
marvellously  inspire  everywhere  throughout  this  wide- 
spread land,  and  may  it  strengthen  your  soul !  Trust 
in  God,  in  the  inspiration  of  your  cause,  and  in  the 
Great  Future,  pregnant  with  freedom  for  all  mankind. 
But  respect  our  ideas,  as  we  respect  yours.  Do  not 
seek  to  reverse  our  traditional,  established  policy  of 
peace.  Do  not,  under  the  too  plausible  sophism  of 
upholding  non-intervention,  provoke  American  inter- 
vention on  distant  European  soil.  Leave  us  to  tread 
where  Washington  points  the  way." 

And  yet,  with  these  convictions,  Mr.  President, 
which  I  now  most  sincerely  express,  I  trust  the  Sena- 
tor from  Georgia  [Mr.  Berrien]  will  pardon  me 
when  I  say  I  cannot  join  in  his  proposed  amendment ; 
and  for  this  specific  reason.  It  attaches  to  an  act  of 
courtesy  and  welcome  a  condition  which,  however  just 
as  an  independent  proposition,  is  most  ungracious  in 
such  connection.  It  is  out  of  place,  and  everything 
2 


14  WELCOME    TO    KOSSTJTH. 

out  of  place  is,  to  a  certain  extent,  offensive.  If 
adopted,  it  would  impair,  if  not  destroy,  the  value  of 
our  act.  A  generous  hospitality  will  not  make  terms 
or  conditions  with  a  guest;  and  such  hospitality,  I 
trust,  Congress  will  tender  to  Louis  Kossuth. 


JUSTICE  TO  THE  LAND  STATES  AND  POLICY  OF 
EOADS. 

SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES  ON  THE 
IOWA  RAILROAD  BILL,  27lH  JAN.,  17TH  FEB.,  AND  16lH 
MARCH,  1852. 


IN  THE  SENATE,  January  27,  1852.  The  Senate  having 
under  consideration  the  special  order,  being  the  "  bill  grant- 
ing the  right  of  way,  and  making  a  grant  of  land  to  the 
State  of  Iowa,  in  aid  of  the  construction  of  certain  railroads 
in  said  State,"  — 

MR.  SUMNEK  said  :  — 

This  bill  is  important  by  itself,  inasmuch  as  it  prom- 
ises to  secure  the  building  of  a  railroad  at  large  cost, 
for  a  long  distance,  through  a  country  not  thickly 
settled,  in  a  remote  corner  of  the  land.  It  is  more 
important  still  as  a  precedent  for  a  series  of  similar  ap- 
propriations in  other  States.  In  this  discussion,  then, 
we  have  before  us,  at  the  same  time,  the  special  in- 
terests of  the  State  of  Iowa,  traversed  by  this  projected 
road,  and  also  the  great  question  of  the  administration 
of  the  public  lands. 

I  have  no  inclination  to  go  into  these  matters  at 
length,  even  if  I  were  able  ;  but  entertaining  no  doubt 
as  to  the  requirements  of  policy  and  of  justice  in  the 
present  case,  and  in  all  like  cases,  seeing  my  way 
clearly  before  me  by  lights  that  cannot  deceive,  I  hope 
in  a  few  words  to  exhibit  these  requirements  and  to 

[15] 


16  JUSTICE    TO    THE    LAND    STATES 

make  this  way  manifest  to  others.  And  I  am  es- 
pecially moved  to  do  so  by  the  tone  of  remarks  often 
heard  out  of  the  Senate,  and  sometimes  even  here, 
begrudging  these  appropriations,  and  charging  the 
particular  States  for  which  they  are  made  with  an 
undue  absorption  of  the  property  of  the  Union.  It  is 
sometimes  said  —  not  in  this  body,  I  know  —  that 
"  the  West  is  stealing  the  public  lands  ; "  and  the 
Senator  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Hunter],  who  expresses 
himself  with  a  frankness  and  a  moderation  of  manner 
worthy  of  regard,  in  discussing  this  very  measure,  dis- 
tinctly said  that  "  we  are  squandering  away  the  public 
lands  ;  "  and  he  complained  that  such  appropriations 
were  partial,  "  because  very  large  amounts  of  land  are 
distributed,  to  those  States  in  which  they  lie,  while 
nothing  is  given  to  the  old  States."  And  the  Senator 
from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Underwood],  taking  up  this 
strain,  has  dwelt  at  great  length,  and  in  every  variety 
of  expression,  on  the  alleged  partiality  of  the  distribu- 
tion. 

Now,  I  know  full  well  that  the  States  in  which 
these  lands  lie  need  no  defender  like  myself.  But,  as 
a  Senator  from  one  of  the  old  States,  I  desire  thus 
early  to  declare  distinctly  my  dissent  from  these  views, 
and  the  reasons  for  my  dissent.  Beyond  a  general  con- 
cern, that  the  public  lands,  of  which  the  Union  is  now 
the  almoner,  the  custodian  and  proprietor,  should  be  ad- 
ministered freely,  generously,  bountifully,  in  such  wise 
as  most  to  promote  their  settlement,  and  to  build  upon 
them  towns,  cities,  and  States,  the  nurseries  of  future 
empire  —  beyond  this  concern  which  leads  me  to 
adopt  gladly  the  proposition,  in  favor  of  actual  set- 
tlers, brought  forward  by  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin 


AND    POLICY    OF    ROADS.  17 

[Mr.  Walker],  I  find  a  clear  and  special  reason  for 
supporting  the  measure  now  before  the  Senate,  in  an 
undeniable  rule  of  justice  to  the  States  in  which  the 
lands  lie. 

Let  me  speak,  then,  for  justice  to  the  land  States. 
And  in  doing  so  I  wish  to  present  an  important,  and, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  decisive  consideration  —  which  has 
not  been  adduced  thus  far  in  this  debate,  nor  do  I 
know  that  it  has  been  presented  in  any  prior  discus- 
sion— founded  on  the  exemption  from  taxation  enjoyed 
by  the  National  lands  in  the  several  States,  and  the 
unquestionable  value  of  this  franchise.  The  subject 
naturally  presents  itself  under  two  heads :  First,  the 
origin  and  nature  of  this  franchise ;  and,  secondly,  its 
extent  and  value,  after  deducting  therefrom  all  reser- 
vations and  grants  to  the  several  States. 

I.  And  now,  in  the  first  place,  as  to  the  origin  and 
nature  of  the  immunity  enjoyed  by  the  national  domain 
in  the  several  States. 

The  United  States  are  the  proprietors  of  lar-ge  tracts 
of  country  within  the  municipal  and  legislative  juris- 
diction of  States  of  the  Union.  These  lands  are  not 
held  directly  by  virtue  of  any  original  prerogative  or 
eminent  domain,  by  any  right  of  conquest,  occupancy, 
or  discovery,  but  under  acts  of  cession  from  the  old 
States,  in  which  the  lands  were  situated,  and  from 
foreign  countries,  recognized  and  confirmed  in  the 
various  statutes  by  which  the  different  States  have 
been  constituted.  The  words  determining  this  relation 
are  found  in  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  They  are  as 
follow :  "  The  Legislatures  of  these  districts  or  new 
States  shall  never  interfere  with  the  primary  disposal 
of  the  soil  by  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled, 
2* 


18  JUSTICE    TO    THE    LAND    STATES 

nor  with  any  regulations  Congress  may  find  necessary 
for  securing  the  title  in  such  soil  to  bonaf.de  pur- 
chasers." This  provision  has  been  incorporated,  as  an 
article  of  compact,  in  the  subsequent  statutes  under 
which  the  new  States  have  taken  their  place  in  the 
Union.  It  is  the  "  primary  disposal  of  the  soil," 
without  any  incident  of  sovereignty,  which  is  here 
secured. 

Regarding  the  United  States,  then,  as  simple  pro- 
prietors of  these  lands,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
States,  would  they  not  be  liable,  in  the  discretion  of 
the  States,  to  the  burdens  of  other  proprietors,  unless 
especially  exempted  therefrom  ?  This  exemption  has 
been  conceded.  In  the  ordinance  of  1787,  it  is  ex- 
pressly declared  that  "  no  tax  shall  be  imposed  on 
land  the  property  of  the  United  States  ; "  and  this 
provision,  like  that  already  mentioned,  is  embodied  in 
succeeding  acts  of  Congress  by  which  new  States  have 
been  constituted.  The  fact  that  it  was  formally  con- 
ceded and  has  been  thus  imbodied,  seems  to  denote 
that  such  concession  was  regarded  as  necessary  to 
secure  the  desired  immunity.  Indeed,  from  the  prin- 
ciples recognized  in  our  jurisprudence,  and  particularly 
by  the  Supreme  Court,  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  that, 
without  such  express  exemption,  this  whole  amount 
of  territory  would  be  within  the  field  of  local  taxation, 
liable,  like  the  lands  of  other  proprietors,  to  all  cus- 
tomary burdens  and  incidents. 

Thus,  in  an  early  case  in  Pennsylvania,  it  was  de- 
cided that  the  purchase  of  land  by  the  United  States 
would  not  alone  be  sufficient  to  vest  them  with  the 
jurisdiction,  or  to  oust  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State, 
without  being  accompanied  or  followed  by  the  consent 


AND    POLICY    OF    ROADS.  19 

of  the  Legislature  of  the  State.  (See  Commonwealth 
of  Pennsylvania  v.  Young.  1  Kent's  Comm.  431.) 
And  it  has  been  judicially  declared  by  the  late  Mr. 
Justice  Woodbury,  in  a  well-considered  case  : 

"  Where  the  United  States  own  land  situated  within  the 
limits  of  any  particular  States,  and  over  which  they  have 
no  cession  of  jurisdiction,  for  objects  either  special  or  gen- 
eral, little  doubt  exists  that  the  rights  and  remedies  in  relation 
to  it  are  usually  such  as  apply  to  other  landholders  within 
the  Stale." 

After  setting  forth  certain  rights  of  the  United 
States,  the  learned  judge  proceeds  : 

"  All  these  rights  exist  in  the  United  States  for  constitu- 
tional purposes,  and  without  a  special  cession  of  jurisdiction ; 
though  it  is  admitted  that  the  powers  over  the  property  and 
persons  on  such  lands  will,  of  course,  remain  in  the  States 
till  such  cession  is  made.  Nothing  passes  without  such  a 
cession,  except  what  is  an  incident  to  the  title  and  purposes 
of  the  General  Government." —  United  Slates  v.  Ames,  1 
Woodbury  &  Minot,  R.  76. 

The  Supreme  Court  have  given  great  eminence  to 
the  sovereign  right  of  taxation  in  the  States.  They 
have  said  : 

"  Taxation  is  a  sacred  right,  essential  to  the  existence  of 
Government  —  an  incident  of  sovereignty.  The  right  of 
legislation  is  co-extensive  with  the  incident,  to  attach  it 
upon  all  persons  and  property  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
State."  —  Dobbins  v.  Commissioners  of  Erie  Co.,  17  Peters, 
R.  447. 

And  again,  the  Court  say  in  another  case  : 

"  However  absolute  the  right  of  an  individual  may  be,  it 
is  still  in  the  nature  of  that  right  that  it  must  bear  a  por- 


20  JUSTICE    TO    THE    !LAND    STATES 

tion  of  the  public  burdens,  and  that  portion  must  be  de- 
termined by  the  Legislature." — Providence  Bank  v.  Pitt- 
man  t  4  Peters,  R.  514. 

And  in  the  same  case  the  Court,  after  declaring 
"  that  the  taxing  power  is  of  vital  importance ;  that  it 
is  essential  to  the  existence  of  Government ;  that  the 
relinquishment  of  such  a  power  is  never  to  be  as- 
sumed," add,  cautiously,  that  they  will  not  say  "  that 
a  State  may  not  relinquish  it  —  that  a  consideration 
sufficiently  valuable  to  induce  a  partial  release  of  it 
may  not  exist." 

While  thus  upholding  the  right  of  taxation  as  one 
of  the  precious  attributes  of  sovereignty  in  the  States, 
the  Court,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
have  properly  exempted  from  taxation  the  instruments 
and  means  of  the  Government ;  but  they  have  limited 
the  exemption  to  these  instruments  and  means.  Thus 
it  has  been  expressly  decided  in  a  celebrated  case, 
(McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheaton,  316,)  that,  while 
the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  being  one  of  the  neces- 
sary instruments  and  means  to  execute  the  sovereign 
powers  of  the  nation,  was  not  liable  to  taxation,  yet 
the  real  property  of  the  Bank  was  thus  liable  in  com- 
mon with  the  other  real  property  in  a  particular  State. 
.  Now,  the  lands  held  by  the  United  States  do  not 
belong  to  the  instruments  and  means  necessary  and 
proper  to  execute  the  sovereign'powers  of  the  nation. 
In  this  respect  they  clearly  differ  from  fortifications, 
arsenals,  and  navy  yards.  They  are  strictly  in  the 
nature  of  private  property  of  the  nation,  situated 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  States.  In  excusing  them 
from  taxation,  our  fathers  acted  unquestionably  ac- 
cording to  the  suggestions  of  prudence,  but  also  under 


AND    POLICY    OF     KOADS.  21 

the  influence  of  precedent,  derived  at  that  time  from, 
the  prerogatives  of  the  British  Crown.  It  was  an 
early  prerogative,  transmitted  from  feudal  days,  when 
all  taxes  were  in  the  nature  of  aids  and  subsidies  to 
the  monarch,  that  the  property  of  the  Crown,  .of  every 
nature,  should  be  exempt  from  taxation.  But  mark 
the  change.  This  ancient  feudal  principle  is  not  now 
the  existing  law  of  England.  By  the  statute  of  39 
and  40  George  III,  cap.  38,  passed  twelve  years  after 
the  Ordinance  of  1787,  the  lands  and  tenements  pur- 
chased by  the  Crown  out  of  the  privy  purse  or  other 
moneys  not  appropriated  to  any  public  service,  or 
which  came  to  the  King  from  his  ancestors  or  private 
persons  —  in  other  words,  lands  and  tenements  in  the 
nature  of  private  property  —  are  subjected  to  taxation, 
even  while  they  belong  to  the  Crown. 

Thus  the  matter  now  stands.  Lands  belonging  to 
the  nation,  which,  it  seems,  even  royal  prerogative  at 
this  day,  in  England,  cannot  save  from  taxation,  are 
in  our  country,  under  express  provisions  of  compact, 
early  established,  exempted  from  this  burden.  Now, 
sir,  I  make  no  complaint  of  this ;  I  do  not  suggest 
any  change ;  nor  do  I  hint  any  ground  of  legal  title 
in  the  States.  But  I  do  confidently  submit  that  in  this 
peculiar,  time-honored  immunity,  originally  claimed 
by  the  nation,  and  conceded  by  the  States  within 
which  the  public  lands  lie,  there  is  ample  ground  of 
equity,  under  which  these  States  may  now  appeal  to 
the  nation  for  assistance  out  of  these  public  lands. 

When  I  listen  to  comparisons  discrediting  these 
States  by  the  side  of  the  old  States ;  when  I  hear  it 
charged  that  they  have  been  constant  recipients  of  the 
national  bounty ;  and  when  I  catch  those  sharper 


22       ./  JUSTICE    TO    THE    LAND    STATES 

terms  of  condemnation,  by  which  they  are  character- 
ized as  "plunderers"  and  "robbers"  and  "pirates," 
I  am  forced  to  inquire  whether  the  nation  has  not 
already  received  from  these  States  something  more 
than  it  has  ever  bestowed,  even  in  its  most  liberal 
moods;  whether,  at  this  moment,  the  nation  is  not 
equitably  the  debtor  to  these  States,  and  not  these 
States  the  debtors  to  the  nation.  The  answer  is  clear. 

In  order  to  estimate  the  importance  of  this  equity 
—  for  I  will  call  it  by  no  stronger  term  —  we  must 
endeavor  to  understand  the  extent  and  value  of  the 
franchise  or  immunity  conceded  by  the  States. 

II.  And  I  am  now  brought  to  the  second  head  of 
this  inquiry ;  that  is,  the  extent  and  value  of  the  im- 
munity from  taxation  enjoyed  by  the  national  domain, 
after  deducting  therefrom  all  reservations  and  grants 
to  the  several  States.  Authentic  documents  and  facts 
place  these  beyond  question. 

From  the  official  returns  of  the  Land  Office  in  Jan- 
uary, 1849,  [Exec.  Doc.  2d  session,  30th  Cong.,  H. 
R.  No.  12,  p.  225,]  it  appears  that  the  areas  of  the 
twelve  Land  States  —  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri, 
Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Michigan,  Arkansas, 
Wisconsin,  Iowa,  and  Florida — embrace  392,579,200 
acres.  California  was  not  at  that  time  a  State  of  the 
Union.  Of  this  territory,  only  289,961,954  acres  had 
been,  in  pursuance  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
surveyed,  proclaimed,  and  put  into  the  market.  In 
some  of  the  recent  States,  more  than  a  moiety  of  the 
whole  domain  had  never  been  brought  into  this  con- 
dition. It  continued,  at  the  date  of  these  official 
returns,  still  unconscious  of  the  surveyor's  chain. 
Thus,  in  Wisconsin,  out  of  a  territory  of  more  than 


AXD    POLICY    OF     ROADS.  23 

thirty-four  millions  of  acres,  only  a  little  more  than 
thirteen  millions  had  been  proclaimed  for  sale ;  and  in 
Iowa,  the  very  State  Avhose  interests  are  now  particu- 
larly in  question,  out  of  a  territory  of  more  than 
thirty-two  millions  of  acres,  only  a  little  more  than 
twelve  millions  had  been  proclaimed  for  sale.  It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the  true  ex- 
tent of  territory,  belonging  to  the  United  States  at 
any  time,  much  exceeds  the  extent  actually  in  the 
market ;  but  since  it  may  be  said,  that  the  lands  not 
yet  surveyed,  proclaimed,  and  put  into  the  market, 
though  nominally  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State, 
must  actually  lie  out  of  the  sphere  of  their  influence, 
so  as  not  to  derive  any  appreciable  advantage  from 
the  local  Governments,  and,  as  I  desire  to  hold  this 
argument  above  every  imputation  of  exaggeration  — 
knowing  full  well  that  it  can  afford  to  be  under-stated 
—  I  shall  forbear  to  take  the  larger  sum  as  the  basis 
of  my  estimates,  but  shall  found  them  upon  the  extent 
of  territory  actually  proclaimed  for  sale,  from  the 
beginning  down  to  January,  1849,  amounting  to 
289,961,954  acres. 

All  these  lands  thus  proclaimed  have  been  exempt 
from  taxation.  But  since  they  were  proclaimed  at 
different  periods,  and  also  sold  at  different  periods,  so 
far  as  the  same  have  been  sold,  it  is  necessary,  in 
order  to  arrive  at  the  value  of  this  immunity,  to  as- 
certain what  is  the  average  period  during  which  the 
lands,  after  being  put  into  the  market,  have  been  in 
the  possession  of  the  United  States.  This  we  are  able 
to  do  from  the  official  returns  of  the  Land  Office. 
Here  is  a  table,  now  before  me,  from  which  it  appears 
that  of  the  lands  offered  for  sale  during  a  period  of 


24  JUSTICE    TO    THE    LAND    STATES 

thirty  years,  large  quantities  —  in  some  cases  more  than 
half —  were,  at  the  expiration  of  the  period,  still  on 
hand.  Of  the  fourteen  millions  offered  in  Ohio  during 
this  period,  more  than  two  millions  remained ;  while, 
of  the  nineteen  millions  offered  in  Missouri,  more  than 
twelve  millions  remained.  Of  all  the  lands  offered 
during  this  period  of  thirty  years,  more  than  half  were 
still  unsold.  And  out  of  the  above  aggregate  of  all 
the  lands  proclaimed  from  the  beginning  down  to 
January,  1849,  notwithstanding  the  advancing  tread 
of  our  thick-coming  population,  only  100,209,656 
acres  had  been  sold.  Now,  without  further  pursuing 
these  details,  I  shall  assume  what  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned, as  it  is  most  clearly  within  the  truth,  that  the 
lands  proclaimed  are  not  all  sold  till  after  a  period  of 
fifty  years.  This  estimate  will  make  the  average 
period  during  which  the  lands,  after  being  surveyed 
and  proclaimed,  are  actually  in  the  possession  of  the 
United  States,  and  free  from  taxation,  twenty-five 
years. 

According  to  this  estimate,  289,961,954  acres  pro- 
claimed for  sale,  have  been  absolutely  free  from  taxa- 
tion, during  the  space  of  twenty-five  years,  and  yet 
during  this  whole  period  have,  without  the  ordinary 
consideration  therefor,  enjoyed  the  protection  of  the 
State,  with  the  advantages  and  increased  value  from 
highways,  bridges  and  school-houses,  all  of  which  are 
supported  by  the  adjoining  proprietors,  under  the  laws 
of  the  State,  without  assistance  of  any  kind  from  the 
United  States. 

Such  is  the  extent  of  this  immunity.  But,  in  order 
to  determine  its  precise  value,  it  is  necessary  to  ad- 
vance a  step  further  and  ascertain  one  other  element ; 


AND    POLICY    OF    ROADS.  25 

that  is,  the  average  annual  tax  on  land  in  these  States ; 
for  instance,  on  the  land  of  other  non-residents.  There 
are  no  official  documents  within  my  knowledge  by 
which  this  can  be  determined.  But  after  inquiry  of 
gentlemen,  themselves  landholders  in  these  States,  I 
have  thought  it  might  be  placed,  without  chance  of 
contradiction,  at  one  cent  an  acre.  Probably  it  is 
rather  two  or  even  three  cents ;  but,  desiring  to  keep 
within  bounds,  I  call  it  merely  one  cent  an  acre.  The 
annual  tax  on  289,761,954  acres,  at  the  rate  of  one 
cent  an  acre,  would  be  $2,809,619,  and  the  sum  total 
of  this  tax  for  twenty-five  years  would  amount  to 
$72,490,475,  being  the  apparent  value  of  this  immu- 
nity from  taxation  already  enjoyed  by  the  United 
States  ;  or,  if  we  call  the  annual  tax  two  cents  an  acre 
instead  of  one  cent,  we  have  the  enormous  sum  of 
$144,980,950,  of  which  the  United  States  may  now 
be  regarded  as  trustees  in  equity  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Land  States. 

But  against  this  large  sum  I  may  be  reminded  of 
reservations  and  grants  by  the  nation  to  the  different 
States  in  question.  These,  however,  when  examined, 
do  not  materially  interfere  with  the  result.  From  the 
official  returns  of  the  Land  Office  in  1848,  [Executive 
Doc.,  Thirtieth  Congress,  second  session,  H.  R.  No. 
18,]  we  learn  the  precise  extent  of  these  reservations 
and  grants  down  to  that  period.  Here  is  the  exhibit : 

Acres. 

Common  schools          .....         10,807,958 

Universities  -,'"'.  .  ;.  .  .  823,950 
Seats  of  Government  V/S'  !  '.  '  .  .  50,860 

Salines  ,'    .'•-•;•*  &il     .   '     .         .  . 422,325 

Amount  carried  forward,  12,105,093 

8 


26  JUSTICE    TO    THE    LAXD    STATES 

Amount  brought  forward,  12,105,093 

Deaf  and  dumb  asylums     .         .         .         *•  45,44 

Internal       <  By  act  Sept.  4,  1841,         .          4,169,43 
improvements  f  Roads,  rivers,  and  canals    .  4,305,034 

20,625,006 

This  is  all.  In  the  whole  aggregate,  only  a  little 
more  than  twenty  millions  of  acres  have  been  granted 
to  these  States.  The  value  of  this  sum  total,  if  de- 
ducted from  the  estimated  value  of  the  franchise 
enjoyed  by  the  nation,  will  still  leave  a  very  large 
balance  to  the  credit  of  the  Land  States.  Estimating 
the  land  at  $1.25  an  acre,  all  the  reservations  and 
grants  will  amount  to  no  more  than  $25,788,257. 
Deducting  this  sum  from  $72,490,475,  and  we  have 
$46,702,218  to  be  entered  to  the  credit  of  the  Land 
States  ;  or,  if  we  place  the  tax  at  two  cents  an  acre, 
more  than  double  this  sum. 

This  result  leaves  the  nation  so  largely  in  debt  to 
the  Land  States,  that  it  becomes  of  small  importance 
to  scan  closely  the  character  of  these  grants  and  reser- 
vations, in  order  to  determine  whether  in  large  part 
they  have  not  been  already  satisfied  by  specific  con- 
siderations on  the  part  of  the  States.  But  the  stress 
that,  in  the  course  of  this  debate,  has  been  laid  upon 
this  bounty,  leads  me  to  go  further.  It  appears,  from 
an  examination  of  the  acts  of  Congress  by  which  the 
Land  States  were  admitted  into  the  Union,  that  a  large 
portion  of  these  reservations  and  grants  was  made  on 
the  express  condition  that  the  lands  sold  by  the 
United  States,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  States, 
should  remain  exempt  from  any  State  tax  for  the  space 
of  Jive  years  after  the  sale.  This  condition  is  particu- 
larly applicable  to  the  appropriations  for  common 


AND    POLICY    OF     ROADS.  27 

schools,  universities,  seats  of  Government,  and  salines, 
amounting  to  12,105,093  acres.  It  is  also  particularly 
applicable  to  another  item,  not  mentioned  before, 
which,  is  known  as  the  five  per  cent,  fund,  from  the 
proceeds  of  the  public  lands,  for  the  benefit  of  roads 
and  canals,  amounting  in  the  whole  to  $5,242,069. 
These  appropriations  being  made  on  specific  considera- 
tions, faithfully  performed  by  the  States  down  to  this 
day,  may  properly  be  excluded  from  our  calculations. 
And  this  is  a  response  to  the  Senator  from  Kentucky 
[Mr.  Underwood],  who  dwelt  so  energetically  on 
these  appropriations,  without  seeming  to  be  aware  of 
the  conditions  on  which  they  were  granted. 

That  I  may  make  this  more  intelligible,  let  me  refer 
to  the  act  for  the  admission  of  Indiana.  After  setting 
forth  the  five  reservations  and  grants  already  men- 
tioned, it  proceeds  : 

"  And  provided,  always,  That  the  five  foregoing  provis- 
ions herein  offered  are  on  the  condition  that  the  convention 
of  the  said  State  shall  provide  by  an  ordinance,  irrevocable 
without  the  consent  of  the  United  States,  that  every  and 
each  tract  of  land  sold  by  the  United  States,  from  and  after 
the  1st  day  of  December  next,  shall  be,  and  remain,  exempt 
from  any  tax  laid  by  order  of  any  authority  of  the  State, 
whether  for  State,  county,  or  township,  or  any  other  pur- 
pose whatever,  for  the  term  of  five  years  from  and  after  the 
day  of  sale." 

This  clause  does  not  stand  by  itself  in  the  acts  ad- 
mitting the  more  recent  States,  but  is  mixed  with 
other  conditions.  I  will  not  believe,  however,  that 
any  discrimination  can  be  made  between  particular 
Land  States,  on  the  ground  of  a  difference  in  their 
conditions  which  may  properly  be  attributed  to  acci- 
dental circumstances.  The  provision  just  quoted  is 


28  JUSTICE    TO    THE    LAND    STATES 

found  substantially  in  the  acts  for  the  admission  of 
Ohio,  Missouri,  Illinois  and  Arkansas.  So  far  as 
these  States  are  concerned,  it  is  a  complete  considera- 
tion, in  the  nature  of  satisfaction,  for  the  reservations 
and  grants  enjoyed  by  them.  It  also  helps  to  illus- 
trate the  value  of  the  permanent  immunity  from  taxa- 
tion belonging  to  the  United  States,  by  exhibiting  the 
concessions  made  by  the  United  States  to  assure  this 
franchise  to  certain  moderate  quantities  of  land  during 
the  brief  space  of  five  years  only. 

After  the  constant  charges  of  squandering  the  public 
lands  and  of  partiality  to  the  Land  States,  I  think  all 
will  be  astonished  at  the  small  amount  to  be  entered 
on  the  debtor  side,  in  the  great  account  between  the 
States  and  the  National  Government.  This  consists 
of  grants  for  internal  improvements,  in  the  whole 
reaching  to  only  8;474,473  acres,  which,  at  $1.25  an 
acre,  will  be  $10,593,091.  If  this  sum  be  deducted 
from  the  estimated  value  of  the  immunity  from  taxation 
already  enjoyed  by  the  United  States,  we  shall  still 
have  upwards  of  $60, 000, 000  surrendered  by  the  Land 
States  to  the  nation ;  or,  if  we  call  the  annual  tax  two 
cents  an  acre,  more  than  double  this  sum. 

In  these  estimates  I  have  grouped  together  all  the 
Land  States.  But,  taking  separate  States,  we  shall 
find  the  same  proportionate  result.  For  instance, 
there  is  Ohio,  with  16,770,984  acres  proclaimed  for 
sale  down  to  January  1,  1849.  Adopting  the  basis 
already  employed,  and  assuming  that  these  lands  con- 
tinued in  the  possession  of  the  United  States  after 
being  surveyed  and  proclaimed  an  average  period  of 
twenty-five  years,  and  that  the  land  tax  was  one  cent 
an  acre,  we  have  $4,192,725  as  the  value  of  the  im- 


AND    POLICY    OF    ROADS.  29 

munity  from  taxation  already  enjoyed  by  the  United 
States  in  Ohio.  From  this  may  be  deducted  the  value 
of  1,181,134  acres,  being  grants  to  this  State  for 
internal  improvements,  at  $1.25  per  acre,  equal  to 
$1,476,367,  leaving  upwards  of  two  millions  —  nearly 
three  millions  —  of  dollars  yielded  by  this  State  to  the 
nation. 

Take  another  State  —  Missouri.  It  appears  that, 
down  to  January,  1849,  39,685,609  acres  had  been 
proclaimed  for  sale  in  this  State.  Assuming  again 
the  basis  already  employed,  and  we  have  $9,908,900 
as  the  value  of  the  immunity  from  taxation  already 
enjoyed  by  the  United  States  in  Missouri.  From  this 
may  be  deducted  the  value  of  500,000  acres,  granted 
to  this  State  for  internal  improvements,  which,  at 
$1.25  an  acre,  will  amount  to  $625,000,  leaving  up- 
wards of  nine  millions  of  dollars  thus  yielded  by  this 
State  to  the  nation. 

I  might  in  this  way  proceed  with  all  the  Land  States 
individually ;  but  enough  has  been  done  to  repel  the 
charges  against  them,  and  to  elucidate  their  peculiar 
equity  in  the  premises.  On  the  one  side,  they  have 
received  little  —  very  little  —  from  the  nation  ;  while, 
on  the  other  side,  the  nation,  by  strong  considerations 
of  equity,  is  largely  indebted  to  them.  This  obliga- 
tion of  itself  constitutes  an  equitable  fund  to  which 
the  Land  States  may  properly  resort  for  assistance  in 
their  works  of  internal  improvement,  and  Congress 
will  show  -an  indifference  to  the  reasonable  demands 
of  these  States,  should  it  fail  to  deal  with  them 
munificently  —  in  some  sort,  according  to  the  simple 
measure  of  advantage  which  the  nation  has  already  so 
largely  enjoyed  at  their  hands. 
3* 


30  JUSTICE    TO    THE    IAND    STATES 

Against  these  clear  and  well-supported  merits  of 
the  Land  States,  the  old  States  can  present  small 
claims  to  consideration.  They  have  waived  no  right 
of  taxation  over  lands  within  their  acknowledged 
jurisdiction;  they  have  made  no  valuable  concessions; 
they  have  yielded  up  no  costly  franchise.  It  remains, 
then,  that,  with  candor  and  justice,  they  should  recog- 
nize the  superior  —  I  will  not  say  exclusive  —  claims 
of  the  States  within  whose  borders  and  under  the 
protection  of  whose  laws  the  national  domain  is 
found. 

Thus  much  for  what  I  have  to  say  in  favor  of  this 
bill,  on  the  ground  of  justice  to  the  States  in  which 
the  lands  lie.  If  this  argument  did  not  seem  suffi- 
ciently conclusive  to  render  any  further  discussion 
superfluous,  at  least  from  me,  I  might  go  forward, 
and  show  that  the  true  interests  of  the  whole  country 
—  of  every  State  in  the  Union,  as  of  Iowa  itself — are 
happily  coincident  with  this  claim  of  justice. 

It  will  readily  occur  to  all,  that  the  whole  country 
will  gain  by  the  increased  value  of  the  lands  still 
retained  and  benefited  by  the  proposed  road.  But 
this  advantage,  though  not  unimportant,  is  trivial  by 
the  side  of  the  grander  gains  —  commercially,  politi- 
cally, socially  and  morally  —  which  will  necessarily 
accrue  from  the  opening  of  a  new  communication,  by 
which  the  territory  beyond  the  Mississippi  will  be 
brought  into  connection  with  the  Atlantic  seaboard, 
and  by  which  the  distant  post  of  Council  Bluffs  will 
become  a  suburb  of  Washington.  It  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  exaggerate  the  influence  of  roads  as  means  of 
civilization.  This,  at  least,  may  be  said :  Where  roads 


AND    POLICY    OF    ROADS.  31 

are  not,  civilization  cannot  be ;  and  civilization  ad- 
vances as  roads  are  extended.  By  roads,  religion  and 
knowledge  are  diffused ;  intercourse  of  all  kinds  is 
promoted ;  the  producer,  the  manufacturer,  and  the 
consumer,  are  all  brought  nearer  together ;  commerce 
is  quickened  ;  markets  are  opened  ;  property,  wherever 
touched  by  these  lines,  is  changed,  as  by  a  magic  rod, 
into  new  values ;  and  the  great  current  of  travel,  like 
that  stream  of  classic  fable,  or  one  of  the  rivers  of  our 
own  California,  hurries  in  a  channel  of  golden  sand. 
The  roads,  together  with  the  laws,  of  ancient  Rome, 
are  now  better  remembered  than  her  victories.  The 
Flaminian  and  Appian  Ways  —  once  trod  by  returning 
proconsuls  and  tributary  kings  —  still  remain  as  bene- 
ficent representatives  of  her  departed  grandeur.  Under 
God,  the  road  and  the  schoolmaster  are  the  two  chief 
agents  of  human  improvement.  The  education  begun 
by  the  schoolmaster  is  expanded,  liberalized,  and  com- 
pleted, by  intercourse  with  the  world ;  and  this  inter- 
course finds  new  opportunities  and  inducements  in 
every  road  that  is  built. 

Our  country  has  already  done  much  in  this  regard. 
Through  a  remarkable  line  of  steam  communications, 
chiefly  by  railroad,  its  whole  population  is  now,  or 
will  be  soon,  brought  close  to  the  borders  of  Iowa. 
The  cities  of  the  Southern  seaboard  —  Charleston, 
Savannah,  and  Mobile  —  are  already  stretching  their 
lines  in  this  direction,  soon  to  be  completed  conduc- 
tors ;  while  the  traveller  from  all  the  principal  points 
of  the  Northern  seaboard  —  from  Portland,  Boston, 
Providence,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  and 
Washington  —  now  passes  without  impediment  to  this 
remote  region,  traversing  a  territory  of  unexampled 


32  JUSTICE    TO    THE    LAND    STATES 

resources  —  at  once  a  magazine  and  a  granary  —  the 
largest  coal-field,  and  at  the  same  time  the  largest 
corn-field,  of  the  known  globe  —  winding  his  way 
among  churches  and  school-houses,  among  forests  and 
gardens,  by  villages,  towns,  and  cities,  along  the  sea, 
along  rivers  and  lakes,  with  a  speed  which  may  recall 
the  gallop  of  the  ghostly  horseman  in  the  ballad  : 

"  Fled  past  on  right  and  left  how  fast 

Each  forest,  grove,  and  bower  ! 
On  right  and  left  fled  past  how  fast 
Each  city,  town,  and  tower  ! 

"  Tramp  !  tramp  !  along  the  land  they  speed, 
Splash  !  splash  !  along  the  sea." 

On  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  he  is  now  arrested. 
The  proposed  road  in  Iowa  will  bear  the  adventurer 
yet  further,  to  the  banks  of  the  Missouri ;  and  this 
distant  giant  stream,  mightiest  of  the  earth,  leaping 
from  its  sources  in  the  Rocky  Mountains,  will  be 
clasped  with  the  Atlantic  in  the  same  iron  bracelet. 
In  all  this  I  see  not  only  further  opportunities  for 
commerce,  but  a  new  extension  to  civilization  and 
increased  strength  to  our  National  Union. 

A  heathen  poet,  while  picturing  the  golden  age, 
has  perversely  indicated  the  absence  of  long  lines  of 
road  as  creditable  to  that  imaginary  period  in  contrast 
with  his  own.  "  How  well,"  exclaimed  the  youthful 
Tibullus,*  "  they  lived  while  Saturn  ruled  —  before 
the  earth  loas  opened  by  long  ways  : " 

"  Quam  bene  Saturno  vivebant  rege,  priusquam 
Tellus  in  longas  est  patefacta  mas." 

*  Opera,  Lib.  i.  Eleg.  3,  v.  35. 


AND    POLICY    OF    EOADS.  33 

But  the  true  Golden  Age  is  before  us,  not  behind  us  ; 
and  one  of  its  tokens  will  be  the  completion  of  those 
long  ways,  by  which  villages,  towns,  counties,  States, 
provinces,  nations,  are  all  to  be  associated  and  knit 
together  in  a  fellowship  that  can  never  be  broken. 


The  debate  on  the  Iowa  Kailroad  Bill  was  continued  on 
successive  days  down  to  17th  February,  when  the  speech  of 
Mr.  Sumner  was  particularly  assailed  by  Mr.  Hunter,  of 
Virginia.  To  this  he  replied  at  once  : 

MR.  SUMNER.  One  word,  if  you  please,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent. The  Senator  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Hunter],  who 
has  just  taken  his  seat,  has  very  kindly  given  me 
notice  that  I  am  to  expect  a  broadside  from  the  Sen- 
ator from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Underwood].  For  this  in- 
formation I  am  properly  grateful.  When,  a  few  days 
ago,  I  undertook  to  discuss  an  important  question  in 
this  body,  I  expressed  certain  views,  deemed  by  me  of 
weight.  Those  views  I  submitted  to  the  candor  and 
to  the  judgment  of  the  Senate.  I  felt  confidence  in 
their  essential  justice,  and  nothing  which  I  have  heard 
since  has  impaired  that  confidence.  I  have  listened 
with  respect  and  attention  to  the  address  to-day  from 
the  Senator  from  Virginia,  as  it  becomes  me  to  listen 
to  everything  any  Senator  undertakes  to  put  forth 
here.  But  I  hope  to  be  excused  if  I  say,  that  in 
all  that  he  has  so  eloquently  uttered  with  reference 
to  myself,  he  has  not  touched  by  a  hair-breadth  my 
argument.  He  has  criticized  —  I  am  unwilling  to  say 
that  he  has  cavilled  at  —  my  calculations ;  but  he  has 
not,  by  the  ninth  part  of  a  hair,  touched  the  conclu- 


34  JUSTICE    TO    THE    LAND    STATES 

sion  which  I  drew.  That  still  stands.  And  let  me 
say,  that  it  cannot  be  successfully  assailed  in  the  way 
.attempted  by  him. 

I  said  that  injustice  had  been  done  to  the  Land 
States,  out  of  this  body  and  in  this  body,  —  out  of  this 
body,  because  I  often  heard  them  called  "  land  steal  - 
ers  "  and  "  land  pirates  ;  "  in  this  body,  by  the  Sen- 
ator from  Virginia,  when  he  complained  of  the  partial 
distribution  of  the  public  lands,  and  particularly  pointed 
out  the  bill  now  before  the  Senate  as  an  instance  of 
this  partiality.  I  said  that  this  charge  was  without 
foundation.  And  why  did  I  say  so?  and  on  what 
ground  ?  Because  there  was  an  existing  equity  (I  so 
called  it  —  nothing  more)  on  the  part  of  the  Land 
States  as  against  the  General  Government.  And  on 
what  was  this  founded  ?  On  a  fact  of  record  in  the  pub- 
lic acts  of  this  country.  That  is,  the  exemption  of  the 
public  domain  from  taxation  by  the  States  in  which  it 
is  situated.  The  Senator  from  Virginia  has  not  ques- 
tioned this  fact ;  of  course  he  could  not  question  it, 
for  it  is  unbodied  in  the  acts  of  Congress. 

The  next  inquiry,  then,  was,  as  to  the  value  of 
this  immunity  from  taxation,  which  I  called  an  equity 
on  the  part  of  the  Land  States.  In  order  to  illustrate 
this  value,  I  went  into  calculations  and  estimates, 
which  I  presented,  after  some  study  of  the  subject  — 
not,  perhaps,  such  study  as  the  Senator  from  Virginia 
has  found  time  to  give  to  it,  or  such  as  the  Senator 
from  Kentucky,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  researches, 
doubtless  has  given  to  it.  On  those  calculations  and 
estimates  I  attributed  a  certain  value  to  the  equity  in 
question.  My  calculations  and  estimates  may  be  over- 
stated ;  they  may  be  exaggerated.  The  Senator  from 


c"     AND    POLICY    OF    ROADS.  35 

Virginia  thinks  then;  so.  Other  gentlemen  with  whom 
I  have  had  the  privilege  of  conversing,  think  them 
understated.  But  however  this  may  be,  it  does  not 
touch  the  argument.  I  may  have  done  injustice  to 
my  argument  by  overstating  them.  I  intended  to 
understate  them.  I  still  think  from  all  that  I 
hear,  that  I  have  understated  them.  But,  whether 
understated  or  overstated,  the  argument  still  stands, 
that  these  States  have  conceded  to  the  General  Gov- 
ernment an  immunity  from  taxation ;  that  this  im- 
munity has  a  certain  value  —  I  think  a  very  large 
value  —  and  that  this  value  constitutes  an  equity  to 
which  the  Land  States  have  a  right  to  appeal  for  boun- 
tiful, ay,  for  munificent  treatment  from  the  General 
Government.  Has  the  Senator  from  Virginia  answered 
this  argument  ?  Can  he  answer  it  ? 

But  I  forbear  to  go  into  the  subject  at  this  time. 
I  arose  simply  to  state,  that  as  the  Senator  from  Vir- 
ginia had  kindly  given  me  notice  that  I  am  to  expect 
a  broadside  from  the  Senator  from  Kentucky,  I  am  to 
regard  what  he  said  to-day,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
simply  as  a  signal  gun.  The  Senator  will  pardon  me 
if  I  say  it  is  nothing  more,  for  it  has  not  reached  me, 
or  my  argument.  Meanwhile  I  await,  with  resignation 
and  without  anxiety,  the  broadside  from  Kentucky. 


The  debate  was  continued  for  many  days,  during  which 
the  speech  of  Mr.  Sumner  was  attacked  and  defended. 
Finally,  on  the  16th  March,  immediately  before  the  question 
was  taken,  he  again  returned  to  the  subject : 

Mr.  SUMNEB.  Much  time  has  been  consumed  by 
this  question.  At  several  periods  the  debate  has 


86  JUSTICE    TO    THE    LAND    STATES 

seemed  about  to  stop,  and  then  again  it  has  taken  a  new 
spring,  while  the  goal  has  constantly  receded.  I  know 
not  if  it  is  now  near  the  end.  But  I  hope  that  I  shall 
not  seem  to  interfere  with  its  natural  course,  or  un- 
duly occupy  the  time  of  the  Senate,  if  I  venture  again 
for  one  moment  to  take  part  in  it. 

The  argument  which  I  submitted  on  a  former  oc- 
casion has  not  passed  unregarded.  And  since  it  can 
owe  little  to  my  individual  position,  I  accept  the  oppo- 
sition it  has  encountered  as  a  tribute  to  its  intrinsic 
importance.  It  has  been  assailed  by  different  Senators, 
on  different  days,  and  in  different  ways.  It  has  been 
met  by  harmless  pleasantry,  and  by  equally  harmless 
vituperation;  by  figures  of  rhetoric  and  figures  of 
arithmetic ;  by  minute  criticism  and  extended  discus- 
sion ;  also,  by  that  sure  resource  of  a  weak  cause,  hard 
words  and  an  imputation  of  personal  motives.  I  do 
now  propose  to  reply  to  all  this  array,  least  of  all  shall 
I  retort  the  hard  words  or  repel  the  personal  imputa- 
tions. On  this  head  I  content  myself  now  with  saying 
—  and  confidently,  too,  —  that,  had  he  known  me 
better,  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Underwood], 
who  is  usually  so  moderate  and  careful,  would  have 
hesitated  long  before  uttering  expressions  which  fell 
from  him  in  this  debate. 

The  position  I  took  was  regarded  as  natural,  or  ex- 
cusable in  a  Senator  from  one  of  the  Land  States,  act- 
ing under  the  vulgar  spur  of  local  interest ;  but  it  was 
pronounced  unnatural  and  inexcusable  in  a  Senator 
from  Massachusetts.  Now,  sir,  it  is  sufficient  for  me 
to  say,  in  reply  to  this  suggestion,  that,  while  I  know 
there  are  influences  and  biases  incident  to  particular 
States  or  sections  of  the  Union,  I  recognize  no  differ- 


AND    POLICY    OF    KOA.DS.  37 

ence  in  the  duties  of  Senators  on  this  floor.  Coming 
from  different  States  and  opposite  sections,  we  are  all 
Senators  of  the  Union  ;  and  our  constant  duty  is,  with- 
out fear  or  favor,  to  introduce  into  the  national  legis- 
lation the  principle  of  justice.  In  this  spirit,  while 
sustaining  the  bill  now  before  the  Senate,  I  spoke  for 
"ustice  to  the  Land  States. 

In  sustaining  this  bill,  I  but  followed  the  example 
of  the  Senators  and  Representatives  of  Massachusetts 
on  kindred  measures  from  their  earliest  introduction 
down  to  the  present  time.  The  first  instance  was  in 
1823,  on  the  grant  to  the  State  of  Ohio  of  land  one 
hundred  and  twenty-five  feet  wide,  with  one  mile  on 
each  side,  for  the  construction  of  a  road  from  the  lower 
rapids  of  the  Miami  River  to  the  western  boundary  of 
the  Connecticut  Reserve.  On  the  final  passage  of  this 
grant  in  the  House,  the  Massachusetts  delegation  voted 
as  follows :  Yeas  —  Samuel  C.  Allen,  Henry  W. 
Dwight,  Timothy  Fuller,  Jeremiah  Nelson,  John  Reed, 
Jonathan  Russell.  Nay  —  Benjamin  Gorham.  In 
the  Senate,  the  bill  passed  without  a  division.  In 
1828,  a  still  greater  unanimity  occurred  on  the  passage 
of  the  bill  to  aid  the  State  of  Ohio  in  extending  the 
Miami  canal  from  Dayton  to  Lake  Erie ;  and  this  bill 
is  the  first  instance  of  the  grant  of  alternate  sections, 
as  in  that  now  before  the  Senate.  On  this  the  Massa- 
chusetts delegation  in  the  House  voted  as  follows  : 
Yeas  —  Isaac  C.  Bates,  Benjamin  W.  Crowninshield, 
John  Davis,  Edward  Everett,  John  Locke,  John  Reed, 
Joseph  Richardson,  John  Varnum.  Nays  —  none.  In 
the  Senate,  Messrs.  Silsbee  and  Webster  both  voted 
in  the  affirmative.  I  pass  over  the  intermediate  grants 
which,  I  am  told,  have  been  sustained  by  the  Massa- 
4 

461881 


38  JUSTICE    TO    THE    LAND    STATES 

chusetts  delegations  with  substantial  unanimity.  The 
extensive  grants  at  the  last  session  of  Congress  to  Illi- 
nois, Mississippi,  and  Alabama,  in  aid  of  a  railroad 
from  Chicago  to  Mobile,  were  sustained  by  all  the 
Massachusetts  votes  in  the  House,  except  one. 

Still  further,  in  sustaining  the  present  bill  on  grounds 
of  justice  to  the  Land  States,  I  but  followed  the  re- 
corded instructions  of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts, 
addressed  to  its  Senators  and  Representatives  here  on 
a  former  occasion.  The  subject  was  presented  in  a 
special  message  to  the  Legislature  in  1841,  by  the 
distinguished  Governor  at  that  time,  who  strongly 
urged  "  a  liberal  policy  towards  the  actual  settler,  and 
towards  the  new  States,  for  this  is  justly  due  to  both." 
And  he  added :  "  Such  States  are  entitled  to  a  more 
liberal  share  of  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  than 
the  old  States,  as  we  owe  to  their  enterprise  much  of 
the  value  this  property  has  acquired.  //  seems  to  me, 
therefore,  that  justice  towards  the  States  in  which  these 
lands  lie,  demands  a  liberal  and  generous  policy  to- 
wards them"  In  accordance  with  this  recommenda- 
tion, it  was  resolved  by  the  Legislature,  "  That,  in  the 
disposition  of  the  public  lands,  this  Commonwealth 
approves  of  making  liberal  provisions  in  favor  of  the 
new  Stales ;  and  that  she  ever  has  been,  and  still 
is  ready  to  co-operate  with  other  portions  of  the 
Union  in  securing  to  those  States  such  provisions." 
Thus  a  generous  policy  towards  the  Land  States,  with 
liberal  provisions  in  their  favor,  was  considered  by 
Massachusetts  the  part  of  justice. 

It  was  my  purpose,  before  this  debate  closed,  to 
consider  again  the  argument  I  formerly  submitted,  and 
to  vindicate  its  accuracy  in  all  respects,  both  in  prin- 


AND    POLICY    OF    ROADS.  39 

ciple  and  in  detail.  But  this  has  already  been  so 
amply  done  by  others  so  much  abler  than  myself  —  by 
the  Senator  from  Missouri  [Mr.  Geyer],  both  the  Sen- 
ators from  Michigan  [Mr.  Felch  and  Mr.  Cass],  the 
Senator  from  Arkansas  [Mr.  Borland],  the  Senator 
from  Iowa  [Mr.  Dodge],  and  the  Senator  from  Loui- 
siana [Mr.  Downs],  —  all  of  whom,  with  different 
degrees  of  fulness,  have  urged  the  same  grounds  in 
favor  of  this  bill,  that  I  feel  unwilling  at  this  hour,  and 
while  the  Senate  actually  waits  to  vote  on  the  ques- 
tion, to  occupy  time  by  further  dwelling  upon  it. 
Perhaps  on  some  other  occasion  I  may  think  proper  to 
return  to  it. 

But,  while  avoiding  what  seems  superfluous  discus- 
sion, I  cannot  forbear  to  ask  your  attention  to  the 
amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Under- 
wood]. 

This  amendment,  when  addressed  to  the  Senators 
of  the  favored  States,  is  of  a  most  plausible  character. 
It  proposes  to  give  to  the  original  thirteen  States,  to- 
gether with  Vermont,  Maine,  Tennessee,  and  Kentucky, 
for  purposes  of  education  and  internal  improvement, 
portions  of  the  public  domain,  at  the  rate  of  one  acre 
to  each  inhabitant  according  to  the  recent  census. 
This  is  commended  by  the  declared  object  —  education 
and  internal  improvement.  Still  further,  in  its  dis- 
crimination of  the  old  States,  it  assumes  a  guise  well 
calculated  to  tempt  them  into  its  support.  It  holds  out 
the  attraction  of  seeming,  though  unsubstantial,  self- 
interest.  It  offers  a  lure,  a  bait  to  be  unjust.  I 
object  to  it  on  several  grounds. 

1.  But  I  put  it  in  the  fore-front,  as  my  first  objec- 
tion, its  clear,  indubitable,  and  radical  injustice,  written 


40  JUSTICE    TO    THE    iLAND    STATES 

on  its  very  face.  The  amendment  confines  its  dona- 
tions to  the  old  States,  and,  in  so  doing,  makes  an 
inequitable  discrimination  in  their  favor.  It  tacitly 
assumes  that,  by  the  bill  in  question,  or  in  some  other 
way,  the  Land  States  have  received  their  proper  dis- 
tributive portion,  so  as  to  lose  all  title  to  share  with 
the  old  States  in  the  proposed  distribution.  But  if 
there  be  any  force  in  the  argument,  so  much  considered 
in  this  debate,  that  these  railroad  grants  actually 
enhance  the  neighboring  lands  of  the  United  States, 
and  constitute  a  proper  mode  of  bringing  them  into 
the  market,  or  if  there  be  any  force  in  the  other  argu- 
ment which  I  have  presented,  drawn  from  the  equita- 
ble claims  of  the  Land  States,  in  comparison  with  the 
other  States,  to  the  bounty  of  the  great  untaxed  pro- 
prietor,* then  this  assumption  is  unfounded.  There  is 
no  basis  for  the  discrimination  made  by  the  amend- 
ment. If  the  Iowa  land  bill  be  proper  to  be  passed 
without  this  amendment,  as  I  submit  it  is,  then  this 
amendment,  introducing  a  new  discrimination,  is  im- 
proper to  be  added  to  it.  Nor  do  I  well  see  how  any 
one,  prepared  to  sustain  the  original  bill,  can  sustain 
this  amendment.  The  Senator  from  Kentucky,  who 
leads  us  to  expect  his  vote  for  the  bill,  seems  to  con- 
fess the  injustice  of  his  attempted  addition. 

2.  I  object  to  it  as  out  of  place.  The  amendment 
proposes  to  ingraft  upon  a  special  railroad  grant  to  a 

*  Mr.  Webster  in  his  greatest  speech,  the  celebrated  reply  to 
Mr.  Hayne,  touched  on  this  consideration.  He  said:  "And, 
finally,  have  not  these  new  States  singularly  strong  claims, 
founded  on  the  ground  already  stated,  that  the  government  is  a 
great  untaxed  proprietor  in  the  ownership  of  the  soil?"  — 
WEBSTER'S  SPEECHES,  Vol.  III.  p.  291. 


AND    POLICY    OF    KOADS.  41 

single  State  a  novel  system  of  distribution  of  the 
national  domain.  Now,  there  is  a  place  and  a  time  for 
all  things  ;  and  nothing  seems  to  me  more  important  in 
legislation  than  to  keep  all  things  in  their  proper  place, 
and  to  treat  them  at  their  proper  time.  The  distribu- 
tion of  the  public  lands,  is  worthy  of  attention ;  and  I 
am  ready  to  meet  this  great  question  whenever  it 
arises  legitimately  for  our  consideration;  but  I  object 
to  considering  it  merely  as  a  rider  to  the  Iowa  land 
bill. 

The  amendment  would  be  less  objectionable,  if  pro- 
posed as  a  rider  to  a  general  system  of  railroad  grants, 
as,  for  instance  to  a  bill  embracing  grants  to  all  the 
Land  States ;  but  it  is  specially  objectionable  as  a 
graft  upon  a  single  bill.  The  Senator  who  introduced 
it  doubtless  assumed  that  other  bills,  already  intro- 
duced, would  pass  ;  but,  if  his  amendment  be  founded 
on  this  assumption,  it  should  await  the  action  of  Con- 
gress on  all  these  bills. 

3.  If  adopted,  the  amendment  would  endanger,  if  it 
did  not  occasion  the   defeat  of,  the   Iowa  land  bill. 
This   seems  certain.     Having   this   measure  at  heart, 
believing  it  founded  in  essential  justice,  I  am  unwill- 
ing to  place  it  in  this  jeopardy. 

4.  It  prepares   the  way  for  States  of  this  Union  to 
become  landholders  in  other  States,  subject,  of  course, 
to  the  legislation  of  those  States  —  an  expedient  which, 
though  not  strictly  objectionable  on  grounds  of  law,  or 
under  the  Constitution,  is  not  agreeable  to  our  national 
policy.     It  should  not  be  promoted  without  strong  and 
special  reasons  therefor.     In  the  bill  introduced  by  the 
Senator  from  Illinois  [Mr.   Shields],  bestowing  lands 
for  the  benefit  of  the  insane  in  different  States,  this 

4* 


42  JUSTICE    TO    THE    LAND    STATES 

objection  has  been  partially  obviated,  by  providing 
that  the  States  in  which  there  were  no  public  lands 
should  select  their  portion  in  the  Territories  of  the 
United  States,  and  not  in  other  States.  But,  since  in 
a  short  time  these  very  Territories  may  become  States, 
this  objection  is  rather  adjourned  than  entirely  re- 
moved. 

5.  But  the  lands  held  under  this  amendment,  though 
in  the  hands  of  States,  will  be  liable  to  taxation,  as  the 
lands  of  other  non-resident  proprietors,  and  on  this  ac- 
count will  be  comparatively  valueless.   For  this  reason,  I 
said  that  the  amendment  held  out  the  attraction  of  seem- 
ing, though  unsubstantial,  self-interest.    That  the  lands 
will  be   liable   to  taxation,  cannot  be   doubted.     The 
amendment  does   not  propose   in  any  way  to  relieve 
them  from  this  burden ;  nor  am  I  aware  that  they  can 
be  relieved  from  it.     The  existing  immunity  is  only  so 
long  as  they  belong  to  the  United  States.     Now,  there 
is  reason  to  believe  that,  from  lack  of  agencies  and 
other  means  familiar  to  the  United  States,  the  lands  dis- 
tributed by  this  amendment  would  not  find  as  prompt 
a  market  as  those  still  in  the  hands  of  the  Great  Land- 
holder.    But  howsoever  this  may  be,   it  is   entirely 
clear,  from  the  recorded  experience   of  the   national 
domain,  that  these  lands,  if  sold  at  the  minimum  price 
of  the  public  lands,  and  only  as  rapidly  as  those  of  the 
United   States,  and  if  meanwhile  they  are  subject  to 
the  same  burdens  as  the  lands  of  other  non-residents, 
will,  before  the  sales  are  closed,  be  eaten  up  by  the 
taxes.     The  taxes  will  amount  to  more  than  the  entire 
receipts  from  the  sales  of  the  lands  ;  and  thus   the 
grant,  while  unjust  to  the  Land  States,  will  be  worth- 
less to  the  old  States,  the  pretended  beneficiaries.     In 


AND    POLICY    OP    KOADS.  43 

the  Roman  law,  an  insolvent  inheritance  was  known 
by  an  expressive  phrase  as  damnosa  hereditas.  A 
grant  under  this  amendment  would  be  damnosa  do- 
natio. 

For  such  good  and  sufficient  reasons,  I  am  opposed 
to  this  amendment. 


CHEAP  OCEAN  POSTAGE 

SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  ON  HIS  RESO- 
LUTION IN  RELATION  TO  CHEAP  OCEAN  POSTAGE,  8lH  MARCH, 
1852. 

[This  proposition  Mr.  Sumner  has  renewed  at  each  session  of 
Congress.] 


MR.  STJMNEK.  I  submit  the  following  resolution. 
As  it  is  one  of  inquiry,  merely,  I  ask  that  it  may  be 
considered  at  this  time  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs,  while 
considering  the  nature  and  extent  of  aid  proper  to  be 
granted  to  the  Ocean  Steamers,  be  directed  to  inquire 
whether  the  present  charges  for  letters  carried  by  these 
steamers  are  not  unnecessarily  large  and  burdensome  to 
foreign  correspondence,  and  whether  something  may  not  be 
done,  and,  if  so,  what,  to  secure  the  great  boon  of  Cheap 
Ocean  Postage. 

There  being  no  objection,  the  question  was  stated  to  be 
on  the  adoption  of  the  resolution. 

MB.  SUMNER.  The  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs  have 
the  responsibility  of  shaping  some  measure  by  which 
the  relations  of  our  Government  with  the  ocean  steam- 
ers will  be  defined.  And  since  one  special  inducement 
to  these  relations,  involving  the  bounty  now  enjoyed 

[44] 


CHEAP    OCEAN    POSTAGE.  45 

and  further  solicited,  is  the  carrying  of  the  mails,  I 
trust  this  Committee  will  be  willing  to  inquire  whether 
there  cannot  be  a  reduction  on  the  postage  of  foreign 
correspondence.  Under  the  postage  act  of  1851,  the 
postmaster,  by  and  with  the  advice  of  the  President, 
has  power  to  reduce,  from  time  to  time,  the  rates  of 
postage  on  all  mailable  matter  conveyed  between  the 
United  States  and  any  foreign  country.  But  the  ex- 
istence of  this  power  in  the  postmaster  will  not  render 
it  improper  for  the  Committee,  now  drawn  into  con- 
nection with  this  question,  to  take  it  into  careful 
consideration,  with  a  view  to  some  practical  action,  or, 
at  least,  recommendation  thereon.  The  subject  is  of 
peculiar  interest ;  nor  do  I  know  any  measure  so 
easily  accomplished,  which  promises  to  be  so  benefi- 
cent as  cheap  ocean  postage.  The  argument  in  its 
favor  seems  to  me  at  once  brief  and  unanswerable. 

A  letter  can  be  sent  three  thousand  miles  in  the 
United  States  for  three  cents,  and  the  reasons  for 
cheap  postage  on  the  land  are  equally  applicable  to 
the  ocean. 

In  point  of  fact,  the  conveyance  of  letters  can  be 
effected  in  sailing  or  steam  packets  at  less  cost  than 
by  railway. 

Besides,  cheap  ocean  postage  will  tend  to  supersede 
the  clandestine  or  illicit  conveyance  of  letters,  and  to 
bring  into  the  mails  all  mailable  matter,  which,  under 
the  present  system,  is  carried  in  the  pockets  of  passen- 
gers, or  in  the  bales  and  boxes  of  merchants. 

All  new  facilities  for  correspondence  naturally  give 
new  expansion  to  human  intercourse ;  and  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that,  through  an  increased  number 
of  letters,  cheap  ocean  postage  will  be  self-supporting. 


46  CHEAP    OCEAN    POSTAGE. 

Cheap  postal  communication  with  foreign  countries 
will  be  of  incalculable  importance  to  the  commerce  of 
the  United  States. 

By  promoting  the  intercourse  of  families  and  friends, 
separated  by  the  ocean,  cheap  postage  will  add  to  the 
sum  of  human  happiness. 

The  present  high  rates  of  ocean  postage  —  namely, 
twenty-four  cents  on  half  an  ounce,  forty-eight  cents 
on  an  ounce,  and  ninety-six  cents  on  a  letter  which 
weighs  a  fraction  more  than  an  ounce  —  are  a  severe 
tax  upon  all,  particularly  upon  the  poor,  amounting,  in 
many  cases,  to  a  complete  prohibition  of  foreign  corres- 
pondence. This  should  not  be  so. 

It  particularly  becomes  our  country,  by  the  removal 
of  all  unnecessary  burdens  upon  foreign  correspon- 
dence, to  advance  the  comfort  of  European  emigrants 
seeking  a  home  among  us,  and  to  destroy  as  far  as 
practicable,  every  barrier  to  free  intercourse  between 
the  Old  World  and  the  New. 

And,  lastly,  cheap  ocean  postage  will  be  a  bond  of 
peace  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  will  extend 
good-will  among  men. 

By  such  reasons  this  measure  is  commended.  Much 
as  I  rejoice  in  the  American  steamers,  which  vindicate 
a  peaceful  supremacy  of  the  seas,  and  help  to  weave  a 
golden  tissue  between  the  two  hemispheres,  I  cannot 
consider  these,  with  all  their  unquestionable  advan- 
tages, an  equivalent  for  cheap  ocean  postage.  But  I 
trust  that  they  are  not  inconsistent  with  each  other, 
and  that  both  may  happily  flourish  together. 


Objection  was  made  to  the  resolution,  as  not  being  ad- 
dressed to  the  proper  Committee,  and  a  brief  debate  ensued, 


CHEAP    OCEAN    POSTAGE.  47 

in  which  Mr.  Rusk,  Mr.  Gwin,  Mr.  Badger,  Mr.  Davis,  Mr. 
Seward,  Mr.  Mason  and  Mr.  Sumner,  took  part.  It  was 
urged  by  the  latter,  in  reply  to  objections,  that  the  Com- 
mittee on  Naval  Affairs  was  the  proper  Committee,  as  at 
the  present  moment  it  is  specially  charged  with  a  subject 
intimately  connected  with  the  inquiry  into  the  importance 
and  practicability  of  Cheap  Ocean  Postage.  At  the  sugges- 
tion of  Mr.  Badger,  the  matter  was  allowed  to  lie  over  till 
the  next  day. 

On  Tuesday,  9th  instant,  the  Senate  proceeded  to  consider 
the  resolution  submitted  by  Mr.  Sumner  on  the  8th  inst., 
relative  to  Ocean  Steamers  and  Cheap  Ocean  Postage.  On 
motion  of  Mr.  Sumner,  it  was  amended,  and  finally  adopted, 
without  opposition,  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Post  Office  and  Post 
Roads  be  directed  to  inquire  whether  the  present  charges  on 
letters  carried  by  the  Ocean  Steamers  are  not  unnecessarily 
large  and  burdensome  to  foreign  correspondence,  and  whether 
something  may  not  be  done,  and,  if  so,  what,  to  secure  the 
great  boon  of  Cheap  Ocean  Postage. 


THE  PARDONING  POWER  OF  THE  PRESIDENT. 

ARGUMENT  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  PRESIDENT  14:TH  MAY,  1852, 
ON  THE  APPLICATION  FOR  THE  PARDON  OF  DRAYTON  AND 
SAYRES,  DETAINED  IN  PRISON  AT  WASHINGTON  FOR  HELP- 
ING THE  ESCAPE  OF  SLAVES. 


This  case  excited  peculiar  interest  Messrs.  Drayton  and 
Sayres  had  already  been  in  prison  more  than  four  years,  when 
Mr.  Sunmer  applied  to  President  Fillmore  for  their  pardon.  To 
this  application,  which  was  sustained  by  petitions  from  other 
quarters,  the  President  interposed  doubts  of  his  right  to  exercice 
the  pardoning  power  in  their  case,  but  expressed  a  desire  for 
light  on  this  point.  On  his  invitation,  Mr.  Sumner  laid  before 
him  the  following  paper.  Shortly  afterwards  the  pardon  was 
granted. 


BY  the  laws  of  Maryland,  1737,  chapter  2,  section 
4,  it  is  provided  that  any  person  "  who  shall  steal  any 
negro  or  other  slave,"  "  or  who  shall  counsel,  hire, 
aid,  abet,  or  command  any  person  or  persons  "  to  do 
so,  shall  suffer  death  as  a  felon.  The  punishment  has 
since  been  changed  to  imprisonment,  for  a  term  not 
less  than  seven,  nor  more  than  twenty  years. 

Fourteen  years  later,  by  the  act  of  1751,  chapter  14, 
section  10,  it  was  provided  that  "if  any  free  person 
shall  entice  and  persuade  any  slave  within  this  province 

[48J 


PARDONING    POAVEB    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.         49 

to  run  away,  and  who  shall  actually  run  away  from  the 
master,  owner,  or  overseer,  and  be  convicted  thereof, 
by  confession  or  verdict  of  a  jury,  upon  an  indictment 
or  information,  shall  forfeit  and  pay  the  full  value  of 
such  slave,  to  the  master  or  owner  of  such  slave,  to 
be  levied  by  execution  on  the  goods,  chattels,  lands,  or 
tenements  of  the  offender,  and,  in  case  of  inability  to 
pay  the  same,  shall  suffer  one  year's  imprisonment 
without  bail  or  mainprise." 

Still  later,  by  the  act  of  1796,  chapter  67,  section 
19,  "  the  transporting  of  any  slave  or  person,  held  to 
service  "  from  the  State,  was  made  a  distinct  offence, 
for  which  the  offender  was  made  liable  in  an  action  of 
damages,  and  also  by  indictment. 

By  the  act  of  Congress,  organizing  the  District  of 
Columbia,  (Feb.  27,  1801,)  it  was  declared  that  "the 
laws  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  as  they  now  exist,  shall 
be,  and  continue  in  force,  in  that  part  of  the  said 
District  which  was  ceded  by  that  State  to  the  United 
States,  and  by  them  accepted  as  aforesaid."  Under 
this  provision,  these  ancient  laws  of  Maryland  are  to 
this  day  of  full  force  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

The  facts  to  be  considered  are  few.  Messrs.  Dray- 
ton  and  Sayres,  on  indictment  and  trial,  under  the  act 
of  1737,  for  stealing  slaves,  were  acquitted;  the  jury 
rendering  a  verdict  of  "  not  guilty."  Resort  was  then 
had  to  the  statute  of  1796,  chapter  67,  section  19,  as 
follows :  — 

"  And  be  it  enacted,  that  any  person  or  persons  who  shall 
hereafter  be  convicted  of  giving  a  pass  to  any  slave,  or  per- 
son held  to  service,  or  shall  be  found  to  assist,  by  advice, 
donation,  or  loan,  or  otherwise,  the  transporting  of  any 
5 


50         PARDONING    POWER    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

slave,  or  any  person  held  to  service,  from  this  State,  or  by 
any  other  unlawful  means  depriving  the  master  or  owner 
of  the  service  of  his  slave,  or  person  held  to  service,  for 
every  such  offence  the  party  aggrieved  shall  recover  damages 
in  an  action  on  the  case  against  such  offender  or  offenders, 
and  such  offender  or  offenders  also  shall  be  liable,  upon 
indictment  and  conviction  upon  verdict,  confession  or  other- 
wise, in  this  State,  in  any  county  court  where  such  offence 
shall  happen,  be  fined  a  sum  not  exceeding  two  hundred 
dollars,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court,  one  half  to  the  use 
of  the  master  or  owner  of  such  slave,  the  other  half  to  the 
county  school,  in  case  there  be  any,  if  no  such  school,  to  the 
use  of  the  county." 

Under  this  statute,  proceedings  were  instituted  by 
the  attorney  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  against  these 
parties,  in  seventy-four  different  indictments,  each,  in- 
dictment being  founded  on  the  alleged  "  transporting" 
of  a  single  slave.  On  conviction,  Drayton  was  sen- 
tenced on  each  indictment  to  a  fine  of  $140,  and  costs, 
in  each  case  $19.49,  amounting  in  the  sum  total  to 
$11,802.26.  On  conviction,  Sayres  was  sentenced  on 
each  indictment  to  a  fine  of  $100  and  costs,  in  each 
case  $17.38,  amounting  in  the  sum  total  to  $8,686.12. 
One  half  of  the  fine  Avas,  according  to  law,  to  the  use 
of  the  masters  or  owners  of  the  slaves  transported ; 
the  other  half  to  the  county  school ;  or,  in  case  there 
be  no  such  school,  to  the  use  of  the  county.  After- 
wards, on  motion  of  the  attorney  for  the  District,  they 
were  "  prayed  in  commitment,"  and  committed  until 
the  fine  and  costs  are  payed.  In  pursuance  of  this 
sentence,  and  on  this  motion,  they  have  been  detained 
in  prison,  in  the  city  of  Washington,  from  April,  1848, 
and  are  still  in  prison,  unable,  from  poverty,  to  pay 
these  large  fines.  The  question  now  occurs  as  to  the 


PARDONING    POWER    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.         51 

power  of  the  President  to  pardon  them,  50  at  least  as 
to  relieve  them  from  their  imprisonment. 

The  peculiar  embarrassment  in  this  case  arises  from 
the  nature  of  the  sentence.  If  it  were  simply  a  sen- 
tence of  imprisonment,  his  power  would  be  unquestion- 
able. So,  also,  if  it  were  a  sentence  of  imprisonment, 
with  fine  superadded,  payable  to  the  United  States, 
his  power  would  be  unquestionable ;  and  the  same 
power  would  extend  to  the  case  of  a  fine  payable  to 
the  United  States,  with  imprisonment  as  the  alternative 
on  non-payment  of  the  fine. 

But  in  the  present  case,  the  imprisonment  is  the 
alternative  for  non-payment  of  fines,  which  are  not 
payable  to  the  United  States,  but  to  other  parties,  viz. : 
the  slave  owners  and  the  county.  It  is  important, 
however,  to  bear  in  mind,  that  these  fines  are  a  mere 
donation  to  these  parties,  and  not  a  compensation  for 
services  rendered.  These  parties  were  not  informers, 
nor  were  the  proceedings  in  the  nature  of  a  qui  tarn 
action. 

It  should  be  distinctly  understood,  at  the  outset, 
that  the  proceedings  against  Drayton  and  Sayres  were 
not  at  the  suit  of  any  informer  or  private  individual, 
but  at  the  prosecution  of  the  United  States  by  indict- 
ment. They  are,  therefore,  removed  from  the  authority 
of  the  English  cases,  which  protect  the  share  of  an 
informer  after  judgment  from  remission,  by  pardon 
from  the  crown. 

The  power  of  the  President  in  the  present  case  may 
be  regarded,  first,  in  the  light  of  the  common  law; 


52         PARDONING    POWER    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

secondly,  under  the  statutes  of  Maryland,  and  thirdly, 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

First.  —  As  to  the  common  law,  it  may  be  doubtful 
whether,  according  to  early  authorities,  the  pardoning 
power  can  be  used  so  as  to  bar  or  divest  any  legal 
interest,  benefit,  or  advantage,  vested  in  a  private  in- 
dividual. It  is  broadly  stated  by  English  writers, 
that  it  cannot  be  so  used.  (2  Hawkins,  P.  C.  392,  cap. 
37,  sec.  34;  17  Viner's  Abridgment;  39  Prerogative 
of  King  JJ.,  art.  7.)  But  this  principle  does  not 
seem  to  be  sustained  by  practical  cases  in  the  United 
States,  except  in  the  instances  of  informers  and  qui 
tarn  actions,  while,  on  one  occasion,  in  a  leading  case 
.  in  Kentucky,  it  was  rejected.  (Routt  v.  Flemster,  7 
J.  J.  Marshall,  132.) 

But  it  is  clearly  established  that,  where  the  fine  is 
allotted  to  a  public  body  or  a  public  officer,  for  a  pub- 
lic purpose,  it  may  be  remitted  by  a  pardon.  This 
may  be  illustrated  by  several  cases. 

1.  As  where  in  Pennsylvania,  the  fine  was  for  the 
benefit  of  the  county.  In  this  case,  the  court  said, 
"  Until  the  money  is  collected  and  paid  into  the 
treasury,  the  constitutional  right  of  the  Governor  to 
pardon  the  offender,  and  remit  the  fine  or  forfeiture, 
remains  in  full  force.  They  can  have  no  more  vested 
interest  in  the  money  than  the  Commonwealth,  under 
the  same  circumstances,  would  have  had ;  and  it  can- 
not be  doubted  that,  until  the  money  reaches  the  trea- 
sury, the  Governor  has  the  power  to  remit.  In  the 
case  of  costs,  private  persons  are  interested  in  them ; 
but  as  to  fines  and  forfeitures,  they  are  imposed  upon 
principles  of  public  policy.  The  latter,  therefore,  are 
under  the  exclusive  control  of  the  Governor."  (Com- 


PABDONING    POWEK    OF    THE    PKESIDENT.         53 

monwealth  v.  Denniston,  9  Watts,  142.)  The  same 
point  is  also  illustrated  by  a  case  in  Indiana.  (HolU- 
day  v.  The  People,  5  Oilman,  214,  217.) 

2.  As  where,  in  Georgia,  the  fine  was  to  be  paid 
to  an  inferior  court,  for  county  purposes.      (Johns  v. 
Georgia,  1  Kelly,  606,  610.) 

3.  As  where,   in    South  Carolina,  the   fine  was  to 
be  paid  to  the  Commissioners  of  Public  Buildings,  for 
public  purposes.    (The  State  v.  Simpson,  1  Bailey,  378.) 
Or  the  Commissioners  of  Public  Roads.    (The  State  v. 
Williams,  1  Nott  &  McCord,  26.    See  also  Rowe  v. 
State,  2  Bay,  565.) 

According  to  these  authorities,  the  portion  of  the 
fine  allotted  to  the  county,  or  to  the  school,  may  be 
remitted.  Of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

Secondly. — The  Statutes  of  Maryland,  anterior  to 
the  organization  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  may  also 
be  regarded  as  an  independent  source  of  light  on  this 
question,  since  these  statutes  have  been  made  the  law 
of  the  District.  And  here  the  conclusion  seems  to  be 
easy. 

By  the  Constitution  of  Maryland,  adopted  14th  Au- 
gust, 1776,  it  was  declared  —  "The  Governor  may 
grant  reprieves  or  pardons  for  any  crime,  except  in  such 
cases  where  the  law  shall  otherwise  direct."  Notwith- 
standing these  strong  words  of  grant,  which  seem  to 
be  as  broad  as  the  common  law,  it  was  further  declared, 
as  if  to  remove  all  doubt,  by  the  Legislature,  in  1782, 
(chap.  42,)  "  That  the  Governor,  with  the  advice  of 
the  Council,  be  authorized  to  remit  the  whole  or  any  part 
of  any  fine,  penalty,  or  forfeitures,  heretofore  imposed, 
or  hereafter  to  be  imposed,  in  any  court  of  law." 
Here  is  no  exception  or  limitation  of  any  kind.  By 
6* 


54         PARDONING    POWER    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

express  words,  the  Governor  is  authorized  to  remit  the 
whole  or  any  part  of  any  fine.  Of  course,  under  this 
clause  he  cannot  remit  a  private  debt ;  but  he  may 
remit  any  fine.  The  question  is  not  whether  the  fine 
be  payable  to  the  United  States  or  other  parties,  but 
whether  it  is  a  fine.  If  it  be  a  fine,  it  is  in  the  power 
of  the  Governor. 

This  view  is  strengthened  by  the  circumstance  that 
in  Maryland,  according  to  several  statutes,  fines  were 
allotted  to  parties  other  than  the  government.  The 
very  statute  of  1796,  under  which  these  proceedings 
were  had,  was  passed  subsequent  to  this  provision 
respecting  the  remission  of  fines.  It  must  be  inter- 
preted in  harmony  with  the  earlier  statute ;  and  since 
all  these  statutes  are  now  the  law  of  the  District  of 
Columbia,  the  power  of  the  President,  under  these 
laws,  to  remit  these  fines,  seems  established  without 
special  reference  to  the  common  law  or  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States. 

If  this  were  not  the  case,  two  different  hardships 
would  ensue;  first,  the  statute  of  1782  would  be  de- 
spoiled of  its  natural  efficacy ;  and,  secondly,  the  minor 
offence  of  "  transporting"  a  single  slave  would  be  pun- 
ishable, on  non-payment  of  the  fine,  with  imprisonment 
for  life,  while  the  higher  offence  of  "  stealing  "  a  slave  is 
punishable  with  imprisonment  for  a  specific  term,  and  the 
other  offence  of  "  enticing  "  a  slave  is  punishable  with 
a  fine  larger  than  that  for  transporting  a  slave,  and  on 
non-payment  thereof,  imprisonment  for  one  year  only. 

Thirdly.  —  Look  at  the  case  under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

By  the  Constitution,  the  President  has  power  "  to 
grant  reprieves  and  pardons  for  offences  against  the 


PARDONING    POWER    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.         55 

United  States,  except  in  case  of  impeachment."  Ac- 
cording to  a  familiar  rule  of  interpretation,  the  single 
specified  exception  leaves  the  power  of  the  President 
applicable  to  all  other  cases.  Expressio  unius  exclusio 
est  alterius.  Mr.  Berrien,  in  one  of  his  opinions  as 
Attorney-General,  recognizes  "  the  pardoning  power 
as  co-extensive  with  the  power  to  punish  ;  "  and  he 
quotes  with  approbation  the  words  of  another  writer, 
that  "  the  power  is  general  and  unqualified,  and  that 
the  remission  of  fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures,  under 
the  revenue  laws,  is  included  in  it."  (Opinions  of 
Attorney- General,  vol.  ii.  p.  756.) 

On  this  power,  Mr.  Justice  Story  thus  remarks : 
"  The  power  of  remission  of  fines,  penalties  and  for- 
feitures, is  also  included  in  it ;  and  may,  in  the  last 
resort,  be  exercised  by  the  Executive,  although  it  is  in 
many  cases,  by  our  laws  confined  to  the  Treasury  De- 
partment. No  law  can  abridge  the  constitutional 
powers  of  the  Executive  Department,  or  interrupt  its 
right  to  interfere  by  pardon  in  such  cases.  Instances 
of  the  exercise  of  this  power  by  the  President,  in  re- 
mitting fines  and  penalties,  in  cases  not  within  the 
scope  of  the  laws,  giving  authority  to  the  Treasury 
Department,  have  repeatedly  occurred  ;*  and  their  obli- 
gatory force  has  never  been  questioned."  (Story,  Com. 
on  Constitution,  vol.  ii.  §  1504.) 

It  has  been  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court,  after 
elaborate  argument,  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
has  authority,  under  the  Remission  Act  of  the  3d 
March,  1797,  cap.  361,  "to  remit  a  forfeiture  or  pen- 
alty accruing  under  the  revenue  laws,  at  any  time, 
before  or  after  a  final  sentence  of  condemnation  or 
judgment  for  the  penalty,  until  the  money  is  actually 


56         PARDONING    POWER    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

paid  over  to  the  Collector  for  distribution ;  and  such 
permission  extends  to  the  shares  of  the  forfeiture  or 
penalty  to  which  the  office  of  the  customs  is  entitled, 
as  well  as  to  the  interest  of  the  United  States."  In 
giving  his  opinion  in  this  case,  Mr.  Justice  Johnson, 
of  South  Carolina,  made  use  of  language  much  in 
point.  "  Mercy  and  justice,"  he  said,  "  could  only 
have  been  administered  by  halves,  if  collectors  could 
have  hurried  causes  to  judgment,  and  then  clung  to 
the  one-half  of  the  forfeiture,  in  contempt  of  the  cries 
of  distress,  or  the  mandates  of  the  Secretary."  (United 
States  v.  Morris,  10  Wheaton,  303.) 

A  case  has  occurred  in  Kentucky,  to  which  reference 
has  been  already  made,  in  which  it  is  confidently  and 
broadly  assumed  that  the  pardoning  power  (under  the 
Constitution)  extends  even  to  the  penalties  due  to  in- 
formers. The  following  passage  occurs  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Court:  "The  act  of  1823  says  that  any  prose- 
cuting attorney,  who  shall  prosecute  any  person  to 
conviction  under  it,  shall  be  entitled  to  twenty-five  per 
cent,  of  the  amount  of  such  fine  as  shall  be  collected. 
The  act  gives  the  prosecuting  attorney  one-fourth  of 
the  money  when  collected,  but  vests  him  with  no  in- 
terest in  the  fine  or  sentence,  separate  and  distinct  from 
that  of  the  Commonwealth,  that  would  screen  his  share 
from  the  effect  of  any  legal  operation  which  should, 
before  collection,  abrogate  the  whole  or  a  part  of  it. 
It  would  require  language  of  the  strongest  and  most 
explicit  character  to  authorize  a  presumption  that  the 
Legislature  intended  to  confer  any  such  right.  We 
could  never  presume  an  intention  to  control  the  Gov- 
ernor's constitutional  power  to  remit  fines  and  forfei- 
tures. If  he  can,  in  this  way,  be  restrained  in  the 


TARDOXING    POWER    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.         57 

exercise  of  his  power  to  remit,  for  the  fourth  of  a  fine, 
so  can  he  be  from  the  half  or  the  whole.  This  part  of 
his  prerogative  cannot  be  curtailed.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  the  case  of  treason,  his  power  to  remit  Jines 
and  forfeitures,  grant  reprieves  and  pardons,  is  unlim- 
ited, illimitable  and  uncontrollable.  It  has  no  bounds 
but  his  own  discretion.  It  is  no  doubt  politic  and 
proper  for  the  Legislature  to  incite  prosecuting  attor- 
neys and  informers,  by  giving  them  a  portion  of  fines 
when  collected ;  but  in  so  doing,  the  citizen  cannot  be 
debarred  of  his  right  of  appeal  to  Executive  clemency." 
(Routt  v.  Flemster,  7  J.  J.  Marshall,  132.) 

According  to  these  authorities,  it  seems  reasonable 
to  infer  that,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  the  pardoning  power,  which  is  clearly  applica- 
ble to  the  offence  of  "transporting"  slaves  of  the 
District,  might  remit  the  penalties  in  question.  These 
penalties,  though  allotted  to  the  owners  and  the  county, 
when  finally  collected,  are  neither  more  nor  less  than 
the  punishment,  under  sentence  of  a  criminal  court  for 
an  offence  of  which  the  parties  stand  convicted  upon 
indictment.  They  can  be  collected  and  acquitted 
only  by  the  United  States.  No  process  for  this  pur- 
pose is  at  the  command  of  the  slave  owner.  He  had 
no  control  whatever  over  the  prosecution  at  any 
stage,  nor  did  it  proceed  at  his  suggestion  or  informa- 
tion. The  very  statute  under  which  these  public 
proceedings  were  instituted,  in  the  name  of  the 
United  States,  secured  to  the  slave  owner  his  private 
action  on  the  case  for  damages  —  thus  separating  the 
public  from  the  private  interests.  These,  it  seems  the 
duty  of  the  President  to  keep  separate,  except  on  the 
final  collection  and  distribution  of  the  penalties.  Pub- 


58          PARDONING    POWER    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

lie  policy  and  the  ends  of  justice  require  that  the  pun- 
ishment for  a  criminal  offence  should,  in  every  case,  be 
exclusively  subject  to  the  supreme  pardoning  power, 
without  dependence  upon  the  will  of  any  private  per- 
son. An  obvious  case  will  illustrate  this.  Suppose, 
in  the  case  of  Drayton  and  Sayres,  it  should  be  ascer- 
tained beyond  doubt  that  the  conviction  was  procured 
by  perjury.  If,  by  virtue  of  the  judgment,  the  slave 
owners  have  an  interest  in  the  imprisonment  of  these 
men,  which  cannot  be  touched,  then  the  prisoners, 
unable  to  meet  these  heavy  liabilities,  must  continue  in 
perpetual  imprisonment,  or  owe  their  release  to  the 
accident  of  private  good- will.  The  President,  notwith- 
standing his  beneficent  power  to  pardon,  under  the 
Constitution,  will  be  powerless  to  remedy  this  evil. 
But  such  a  state  of  things  would  be  monstrous  ;  and 
any  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  is  monstrous 
which  thus  ties  his  hands.  Mercy  and  justice  would 
be  rendered  not  merely  ly  halves  :  but,  owing  to  the 
inability  of  prisoners,  from  poverty,  to  pay  the  other 
half  of  the  fine,  they  would  be  entirely  arrested. 

The  power  of  pardon,  which  is  attached  by  the  Con- 
stitution to  offences  generally,  should  not  be  curtailed. 
It  is  a  generous  prerogative,  and  should  be  exercised 
generously.  Boni  judicis  est  ampliare  jurisdictionem. 
This  is  an  old  maxim  of  the  law.  But  if  it  be  the  duty 
of  a  good  judge  to  extend  his  jurisdiction,  how  much 
more  true  is  it  the  duty  of  a  good  President  to  extend 
the  field  of  his  clemency.  At  least,  no  small  doubt 
should  deter  him  from  the  exercise  of  his  prerogative. 
The  conclusion  from  this  review  is  as  follows  : 
1.  By  the  English  common  law,  the  costs  and  one- 
half  of  the  fines  may  be  remitted.  It  is  not  certain 


PARDONING    POWER    OF    THE    PRESIDENT.          59 

that  by  this  law,  as  adopted  in  the  United  States,  the 
other  half  of  the  fines  may  not  also  be  remitted. 

2.  Under  the  statutes  of  Maryland,  now  the  law  of 
the  District,  the  Governor,  and,  of  course,  the  Presi- 
dent, may  remit  "  the  whole  or  any  part  of  any  fine," 
without  exception. 

3.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
according  to  its  true  spirit,  the  pardoning  power  of  the 
President  is  co-extensive  with  the  power  to  punish,  ex- 
cept in  the  solitary  case  of  impeachment. 

Several  courses  are  open  to  the  President  in  the 
present  case. 

I.  By  a  general  pardon  he  may  discharge  Drayton 
and  Sayres  from  prison,  and  remit  all  the  fines  and 
costs  for  which  they  are  detained.  Such  a  pardon 
would  effectually  operate  unquestionably  upon  the  im- 
prisonment and  upon  the  costs,  and  also  upon  the  half 
of  the  fines  due  to  the  county.  It  would  be  for  the 
courts,  on  a  proper  application,  and  in  the  exercise  of 
their  just  powers,  to  restrain  it,  if  the  pardon  did  not 
operate  upon  the  other  moiety. 

Among  the  opinions  of  the  Attorney  General,  is  a 
case  which  illustrates  this  point.  In  1824,  one  Joshua 
Wingold  prayed  for  a  credit  in  the  settlement  of  his 
accounts,  for  his  proportion  of  a  fine  incurred  by  one 
P.  Varney.  It  appeared  that  suit  was  instituted  by 
the  petitioner  as  Collector  of  the  District  of  Bath, 
Maine,  on  which  judgment  was  obtained  in  May,  1809  ; 
the  defendant  was  arrested  and  committed  to  jail,  under 
execution  on  that  judgment,  and  the  fine  afterwards  re- 
mitted by  the  President.  The  petitioner  contended  that 
the  President  had  no  constitutional  or  legal  power  to 
remit  his  proportion  of  the  fiae,  the  right  to  which  had 


60          PAKDONING    POWEK    OF    THE    PRESIDENT. 

been  vested  by  the  institution,  of  the  suit.  On  this  Mr. 
Wirt  remarks,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  express  an  opinion 
upon  the  correctness  of  this  position,  "  because,  if  it  be 
correct,  the  act  of  remission  by  the  President  being 
wholly  inoperative  as  to  that  portion  of  the  fine  claimed 
by  the  collector,  his  legal  right  to  recover  it  remained 
in  full  force,  notwithstanding  the  remission ;  and  it  is 
his  own  fault  if  he  has  not  enforced  his  right  at  law." 
(Opinions  of  Attorney  General,  vol.  i.  p.  479.) 

A  general  pardon  cannot  conclude  the  question,  so 
as  to  divest  any  existing  rights.  It  can  do  no  wrong. 
Why  should  the  President  hesitate  to  exercise  it  ? 

II.  By  a  limited  pardon  the  President  may  discharge 
Drayton  and  Sayres  simply  and  exclusively  from  their 
imprisonment,  without  touching  their  pecuniary  lia- 
bility ;  but  leaving  them  still  exposed  to  proceedings 
for  all  fines  and  costs,  to  be  satisfied  out  of  any  prop- 
erty they  may  hereafter  acquire. 

If  the  imprisonment  had  been  a  specific  part  of  the 
sentence,  —  as  if  they  had  been  sentenced  to  one  year's 
imprisonment  and  a  fine  of  one  hundred  dollars,  — 
beyond  all  question  they  might  be  discharged,  by  par- 
don, from  this  imprisonment.  But  where  the  imprison- 
ment, as  in  the  present  case,  is  not  a  specific  part  of 
the  sentence,  but  simply  an  alternative  in  the  nature 
of  a  remedy,  to  secure  the  payment  of  the  fine,  the 
power  of  the  President  cannot  be  less  than  in  the 
former  case. 

So  far  as  all  private  parties  are  concerned,  the  im- 
prisonment is  a  mere  matter  of  remedy,  which  can  be 
discharged  without  divesting  the  beneficiaries  of  any 
rights ;  and,  since  imprisonment  for  debt  has  been 


PARDONING   POWER   OF    THE    PRESIDENT.         61 

abolished,  it  is  reasonable,  under  the   circumstances, 
that  this  peculiar  remedy  should  be  discharged. 

III.  By  another  form  of  limited  pardon,  the  Presi- 
dent may  discharge  Dray  ton  and  Sayres^rom  their  im- 
prisonment, also  from  all  Jines  and  costs  in  which  the 

United  States  have  an  interest,  without  touching  the 
rights  of  other  parties. 

This  would  set  them  at  liberty,  but  would  leave 
them  exposed  to  private  proceedings  at  the  investiga- 
tion of  the  owners  of  the  "transported  slaves,"  if  any 
should  be  so  disposed. 

IV.  By  still  another  form  of  pardon,  reference  may 
be  made  to  the  Maryland  statute  of  1782,  under  which 
the  Governor  is  authorized  "  to  remit  the  whole  or  any 
part  of  any  fine,"   without  any  exception  therefrom; 
and  this  power,  now  vested  in  the  President,  may  be 
made  the  express  ground  for  the  remission  of  all  fines 
and  costs  due  from  Drayton  and  Sayres.     By  this  form 
of  pardon,  the  case  may  be  limited,  as  a  precedent  here- 
after, to  a  very  narrow  circle  of  cases.     It  would  not 
in  any  way  affect  cases  arising  under  the  general  laws 
of  the  Union. 

In  either  of  these  alternatives,  the  great  object  of 
this  application  would  be  gained  —  the  discharge  of 
these  men  from  prison. 

CHARLES  STJMNEB. 

14  May,  1852. 


TRIBUTE  TO  MR.  RANTOUL. 

SPEECH     IN    THE    SENATE    OF    THE    UNITED     STATES,     ON     THE 
DEATH   OF  HON.  ROBERT   RANTOUL,  JR.,  9TH  AUGUST,  1852. 


A  message  was  received  from  the  House  of  Representatives,  by 
Mr.  Hayes,  its  Chief  Clerk,  communicating  to  the  Senate  infor- 
mation of  the  death  of  the  Hon.  ROBERT  RANTOUL,  JR.,  a  member 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  from  the  State  of  Massachusetts, 
and  the  proceedings  of  the  House  thereon. 

The  resolutions  of  the  House  of  Representatives  were  read. 

MR.  SUMMER  said  :  —  Mr.  President,  by  formal  mes- 
sage of  the  House  of  Representatives,  we  now  learn 
that  one  of  our  associates  in  the  public  councils  has 
died.  Only  a  few  brief  days  —  I  had  almost  said  hours 
—  have  passed  since  he  was  in  his  accustomed  seat. 
Now  he  is  gone  from  us  forever.  He  was  my  col- 
league and  friend ;  and  yet,  so  sudden  has  been  this 
change,  that  no  tidings  of  his  illness  even  had  reached 
me,  before  I  learned  that  he  was  already  beyond  the 
reach  of  mortal  aid  or  consolation,  and  that  the  shadows 
of  the  grave  had  already  descended  upon  him.  He 
died  here  in  Washington,  late  on  Saturday  evening, 
7th  August ;  and  his  earthly  remains,  accompanied  by 
the  bereaved  companion  of  his  life,  with  a  Committee 
of  the  other  House,  are  now  far  on  the  way  to  Massa- 
chusetts, there  to  mingle  dust  to  dust  with  his  native 
soil. 

[62] 


TRIBUTE    TO    MR.    BANTOUL.  DO 

The  occasion  does  not  permit  me  to  speak  at  length 
of  the  character  or  services  of  Mr.  Rantoul.  A  few 
words  will  suffice ;  nor  will  the  language  of  eulogy  be 
required. 

He  was  born  13th  August,  1805,  at  Beverly,  in  the 
county  of  Essex,  the  home  of  Nathan  Dane,  final  au- 
thor of  the  immortal  Ordinance  by  which  freedom  was 
made  a  perpetual  heir-loom  in  the  broad  region  of  the 
Northwest.  Here,  under  happy  auspices  of  family  and 
neighborhood,  he  commenced  life.  Here  his  excellent 
father,  honored  for  his  public  services,  venerable  also 
with  years  and  flowing  silver  locks,  yet  lives  to  mourn 
his  last  surviving  son.  The  sad  fortune  of  Burke  is 
renewed.  He  who  should  have  been  as  posterity,  is 
now  to  this  father  in  the  place  of  ancestor. 

Mr.  Rantoul  was  early  a  member  of  the  Legislature 
of  Massachusetts,  and  there  won  his  first  fame.  For 
many  years  he  occupied  a  place  on  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation in  that  State.  He  was  also,  for  a  time,  Collector 
of  the  Port  of  Boston,  and  afterwards  Attorney  of  the 
United  States  for  Massachusetts.  During  a  brief  pe- 
riod he  held  a  seat  in  this  body.  Finally,  in  1851,  by 
the  choice  of  his  native  District,  remarkable  for  its  in- 
telligence and  public  spirit,  he  became  a  Representative 
in  the  other  branch  of  the  National  Legislature.  In 
all  these  spheres  he  performed  most  acceptable  service. 
And  the  future  promised  opportunities  of  a  higher 
character,  to  which  his  abilities,  industry,  and  fidel- 
ity would  have  amply  responded.  Massachusetts  has 
many  arrows  in  her  well-stocked  quiver ;  but  few  could 
she  so  ill  spare  at  this  moment  as  the  servant  we  now 
mourn. 

By  original  fitness,  study,  knowledge  and  various 


64  TEIBUTE    TO    MB.  EANTOUL. 

experience,  lie  was  formed  for  public  service.  But  he 
was  no  stranger  to  other  pursuits.  Early  devoted  to 
the  profession  of  the  law,  he  followed  it  with  assiduity 
and  success.  In  the  antiquities  of  our  jurisprudence, 
few  were  more  learned.  His  arguments  at  the  bar 
were  thorough ;  nor  was  his  intellectual  promptness  in 
all  emergencies  of  a  trial  easily  surpassed.  Literature, 
neglected  by  many  under  the  pressure  of  professional 
life,  was  always  cultivated  by  him.  His  taste  for 
books  was  enduring.  He  was  a  constant  student. 
Amidst  his  manifold  labors,  professional  and  public,  he 
cherished  the  honorable  aspiration  of  adding  to  the 
historical  productions  of  his  country.  A  work  on  the 
history  of  France,  wherein  the  annals  and  character  of 
this  great  nation  should  be  portrayed  by  an  American 
pen,  had  occupied  much  of  his  thoughts.  I  know  not 
if  any  part  was  ever  matured  for  publication. 

The  practice  of  the  law,  while  it  sharpens  the  intel- 
lect, is  too  apt  to  cramp  the  faculties  within  the  narrow 
limits  of  form,  and  to  restrain  the  genial  currents  of 
the  soul.  It  had  no  such  influence  on  him.  He  was 
a  Reformer.  In  the  warfare  with  Evil,  he  was  enlisted 
early  and  openly  as  a  soldier  for  life.  As  such,  he  did 
not  hesitate  to  encounter  opposition,  to  bear  obloquy, 
and  to  brave  enmity.  His  conscience,  pure  as  good- 
ness, sustained  him  in  every  trial  —  even  that  sharpest 
of  all,  the  desertion  of  friends.  And  yet,  while  earn- 
est in  his  cause,  his  zeal  was  tempered  beyond  that  of 
the  common  reformer.  He  knew  well  the  difference 
between  the  ideal  and  the  actual,  and  sought,  by  prac- 
tical means,  in  harmony  with  the  existing  public  senti- 
ment, to  promote  the  interests  which  he  had  at  heart. 
He  saw  clearly  that  reform  could  not  prevail  at  once, 


TRIBUTE    TO    MR.    RANTOUI,.  65 

in  an  hour,  or  in  a  day,  but  that  it  would  be  the  slow 
and  certain  result  of  constant  labor,  testimony,  and 
faith.  Determined  and  tranquil  in  his  own  convic- 
tions, he  had  the  grace  to  respect  the  convictions  of 
others.  Recognizing  in  the  social  and  political  sys- 
tem the  essential  elements  of  stability  and  progress,  he 
discerned  at  once  the  office  of  the  conservative  and  the 
reformer.  But  he  saw  also  that  a  blind  conservatism 
was  not  less  destructive  than  a  blind  reform.  By  the 
mingled  caution,  moderation,  and  earnestness  of  his 
labors,  he  seemed  often  to  blend  two  characters  in  one 
and  to  be  at  the  same  time  a  Reforming  Conservative 
and  a  Conservative  Reformer. 

I  might  speak  of  his  devotion  to  public  improve- 
ments of  all  kinds,  particularly  to  the  system  of  rail- 
roads. But  here  he  was  on  the  popular  side.  There 
were  other  causes,  where  his  struggle  was  keener  and 
more  meritorious.  At  a  moment  when  his  services 
were  much  needed  he  was  the  faithful  supporter  of 
common  schools,  the  peculiar  glory  of  New  England. 
By  word  and  example  he  sustained  the  cause  of  tem- 
perance. Some  of  his  most  devoted  labors,  commenc- 
ing in  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  were  for  the 
abolition  of  capital  punishment.  Perhaps  no  person 
since  that  consummate  jurist,  Edward  Livingston,  has 
done  so  much  by  reports,  articles,  letters  and  speeches 
to  commend  this  reform  to  the  country.  With  its 
final  triumph,  in  the  progress  of  civilization,  his  name 
will  be  indissolubly  connected.  There  is  another 
cause  that  commanded  his  early  sympathies  and  some 
of  his  latest  best  endeavors,  to  which,  had  life  been 
spared,  he  would  have  given  the  splendid  maturity  of 
his  powers.  Posterity  cannot  forget  this ;  but  I  am 
6» 


66  TRIBUTE    TO    MR.    RAXTOUI,. 

forbidden  by  the  occasion  to  name  it  here.  Sir,  in  the 
long  line  of  portraits  on  the  walls  of  the  ducal  palace 
of  Venice,  commemorating  its  Doges,  a  single  panel, 
where  a  portrait  should  have  been,  is  shrouded  by  a 
dark  curtain.  But  this  darkened  blank,  in  that  place, 
attracts  the  beholder  more  than  any  picture.  Let 
such  a  curtain  fall  to-day  upon  this  theme. 

In  becoming  harmony  with  these  noble  causes  was 
the  purity  of  his  private  life.  Here  he  was  blameless. 
In  manners  he  was  modest,  simple,  and  retiring.  In 
conversation  he  was  disposed  to  listen  rather  than  to 
speak,  though  all  were  well  pleased  when  he  broke 
silence,  and  in  apt  language  declared  his  glowing 
thoughts.  But  in  the  public  assembly,  before  the 
people,  or  in  the  legislative  hall,  he  was  bold  and  tri- 
umphant. As  a  debater  he  rarely  met  his  peer.  Flu- 
ent, earnest,  rapid,  sharp,  incisive,  his  words  came 
forth  like  a  flashing  cimeter.  Few  could  stand  against 
him.  He  always  understood  his  subject ;  and  then, 
clear,  logical,  and  determined,  seeing  his  point  before 
him,  pressed  forward  with  unrelenting  power.  His 
speeches  on  formal  occasions  were  enriched  by  study, 
and  contain  passages  of  beauty.  But  he  was  most 
truly  at  home  in  dealing  with  practical  questions  aris- 
ing from  the  actual  exigencies  of  life. 

Few  had  studied  public  affairs  more  minutely  or 
intelligently.  As  a  constant  and  effective  member  of 
the  Democratic  party,  he  had  become  conspicuous  by 
championship  of  its  doctrines  on  the  currency  and  free 
trade.  These  he  often  discussed ;  and  from  the  am- 
plitude of  his  knowledge,  and  his  overflowing  famil- 
iarity with  facts,  statistics  and  the  principles  of  politi- 
cal economy,  poured  upon  them  a  luminous  flood. 


TEIBUTE    TO    MR.    RANTOtTL.  67 

But  there  was  no  topic  within  the  wide  range  of  our 
national  concerns  which  did  not  occupy  his  thoughts. 
The  resources  and  needs  of  the  West  were  all  known 
to  him ;  and  Western  interests  were  near  his  heart. 
As  the  pioneer,  resting  from  his  daily  labors,  learns 
the  death  of  RANTOUL,  he  will  feel  a  personal  grief. 
The  fishermen  on  the  distant  Eastern  coast,  many  of 
whom  are  dwellers  in  his  District,  will  sympathize  with 
the  pioneer.  As  these  hardy  children  of  the  sea,  re- 
turning in  their  small  craft  from  late  adventures,  hear 
the  sad  tidings,  they,  too,  will  feel  that  they  have 
lost  a  friend.  And  well  they  may.  During  his  last 
fitful  hours  of  life,  while  reason  still  struggled  against 
disease,  he  was  anxious  for  their  welfare.  The  speech 
which,  in  their  behalf,  he  had  hoped  soon  to  make  on 
the  floor  of  Congress,  was  then  chasing  through  his 
mind.  Finally,  in  broken  utterances,  he  gave  to  them 
some  of  his  latest  earthly  thoughts. 

The  death  of  such  a  man,  so  suddenly,  in  mid-career, 
is  well  calculated  to  arrest  attention,  and  to  furnish 
admonition.  From  the  love  of  family,  the  attachment 
of  friends  and  the  regard  of  fellow-citizens,  he  has 
been  removed.  Leaving  behind  the  cares  of  life,  the 
concerns  of  State,  and  the  wretched  strifes  of  party, 
he  has  ascended  to  those  mansions  where  there  is  no 
strife,  or  concern,  or  care.  At  last  he  stands  face  to 
face  in  His  presence  whose  service  is  perfect  freedom. 
He  has  gone  before.  You  and  I,  sir,  and  all  of  us, 
must  follow  soon.  God  grant  that  we  may  go  with 
equal  consciousness  of  duty  done. 

I  beg  leave  to  offer  the  following  resolutions : 

Resolved,  unanimously,  That  the  Senate  mourns  the  death  of 
Hon.  ROBERT  RANTOUL,  JR.,  late  a  member  of  the  House  of  Rep- 


68  TRIBUTE    TO    MB. 

resentatives,  from  Massachusetts,  and  tenders  to  his  relatives  a 
sincere  sympathy  in  this  afflicting  bereavement. 

Resolved,  As  a  mark  of  respect  to  the  memory  of  the  deceased, 
that  the  Senate  do  now  adjourn. 

The  resolutions  were  adopted,  and  the  Senate  ad- 
journed. 


FREEDOM  NATIONAL;   SLAVERY  SECTIONAL. 

SPEECH  IN    THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED   STATES,  26TH  AUGUST 
1852,  ON  HIS  MOTION  TO  REPEAL  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  BILL. 


IN  THE  SENATE,  Wednesday,  26th  May,  1852,  on  the  pre- 
sentation of  a  Memorial  against  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  the  fol- 
lowing passage  occurred,  -which  is  properly  introductory  to  the 
principal  speech  at  a  later  day. 

MB.  SUMNEE.  I  hold  iu  my  hand,  and  desire  to 
present,  a  memorial  from  the  representatives  of  the 
Society  of  Friends  in  New  England,  formally  adopted 
at  a  public  meeting,  and  authenticated  by  their  clerk, 
in  which  they  ask  for  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Bill.  After  setting  forth  their  sentiments  on  the  gen- 
eral subject  of  slavery,  the  memorialists  proceed  as 
follows : 

"  We,  therefore,  respectfully,  but  earnestly  and  sincerely, 
entreat  you  to  repeal  the  law  of  the  last  Congress  respecting 
fugitive  slaves  ;  first  and  principally,  because  of  its  injustice 
towards  a  long  sorely-oppressed  and  deeply-injured  people  ;  and, 
secondly,  in  order  that  we,  together  with  other  conscientious 
sufferers,  may  be  exempted  from  the  penalties  which  it  imposes 
on  all  who,  in  faithfulness  to  their  Divine  Master,  and  in  dis- 
charge of  their  obligations  to  their  distressed  fellow-men,  feel 
bound  to  regulate  their  conduct,  even  under  the  heaviest  penal- 
ties which  man  can  inflict  for  so  doing,  by  the  Divine  injunction, 
'  All  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do 
ye  even  so  to  them  ; '  and  by  the  other  commandment,  '  Thou 
Bhalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself. '  ' ' 

[69] 


70      FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

Mr.  President,  this  memorial  is  commended  by  the 
character  of  the  religious  association  from  which  it  pro- 
ceeds —  men  who  mingle  rarely  in  public  affairs,  but 
with  austere  virtue  seek  to  carry  the  Christian  rule  into 
life. 

The  PRESIDENT.  [Mr.  King,  of  Alabama.]  The 
Chair  will  have  to  interpose.  The  Senator  is  not 
privileged  to  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  subject 
now.  The  contents  of  the  memorial,  simply,  are  to  be 
stated,  and  then  it  becomes  a  question  whether  it  is  to 
be  received,  if  any  objection  is  made  to  its  reception. 
Silence  gives  consent.  After  it  is  received,  he  can 
make  a  motion  with  regard  to  its  reference,  and  then 
make  any  remarks  he  thinks  proper. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  I  have  but  few  words  to  add,  and 
then  I  propose  to  move  the  reference  of  the  memorial 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  memorial  has  first  to  be 
received  before  any  motion  as  to  its  reference  can  be 
entertained.  The  Senator  presenting  a  memorial  states 
distinctly  its  objects  and  contents  ;  then  it  is  sent  to 
the  Chair,  if  a  reference  of  it  is  desired.  But  it  is  not 
in  order  to  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the 
memorial  until  it  has  been  received. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  I  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  any 
such  discussion.  I  have  already  read  one  part  of  the 
memorial,  and  it  was  my  design  merely  to  refer  to  the 
character  of  the  memorialists  —  a  usage  which  I  have 
observed  on  this  floor  constantly  —  to  state  the  course 
I  should  pursue,  and  then  conclude  with  a  motion  for 
a  reference. 

The  PRESIDENT.     The  Chair  will  hear  the  Senator, 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.      71 

if  such  is  the  pleasure  of  the  Senate,  if  he  does  not  go 
into  an  elaborate  discussion. 

Mr.  SUMNEK.     I  have  no  such  purpose. 

Mr.  DAWSON.     Let  him  be  heard. 

Several  SENATORS.     Certainly. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  I  observed  that  this  memorial  was 
commended  by  the  character  of  the  religious  association 
from,which  it  proceeds.  It  is  commended,  also,  by  its 
earnest  and  persuasive  tone,  and  by  the  prayer  which  it 
presents.  Offering  it  now,  sir,  I  desire  simply  to  say, 
that  I  shall  deem  it  my  duty,  on  some  proper  occasion 
hereafter,  to  express  myself  at  length  on  the  matter  to 
which  it  relates.  Thus  far,  during  this  session,  I  have 
foreborne.  "With  the  exception  of  an  able  speech  from 
my  colleague  [Mr.  Davis],  the  discussion  of  this  all- 
absorbing  question  has  been  mainly  left  with  Senators 
from  another  quarter  of  the  country,  by  whose  mutual 
differences  it  has  been  complicated,  and  between  whom 
I  have  not  cared  to  interfere.  But  there  is  a  time  for 
all  things.  Justice,  also,  requires  that  both  sides  should 
be  heard ;  and  I  trust  not  to  expect  too  much,  when, 
at  some  fit  moment,  I  bespeak  the  clear  and  candid 
attention  of  the  Senate,  while  I  undertake  to  set  forth, 
frankly  and  fully,  and  with  entire  respect  for  this  body, 
convictions,  deeply  cherished  in  my  own  State,  though 
disregarded  here  —  to  which  I  am  bound  by  every 
sentiment  of  the  heart,  by  every  fibre  of  my  being,  by 
all  my  devotion  to  country,  by  my  love  of  God  and 
man.  But,  upon  these  I  do  not  now  enter.  Suffice 
it,  for  the  present,  to  say,  that  when  I  shall  undertake 
that  service,  I  believe  I  shall  utter  nothing  which,  in 
any  just  sense,  can  be  called  sectional,  unless  the  Con- 
stitution is  sectional,  and  unless  the  sentiments  of  the 


72      FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

fathers  were  sectional.  It  is  my  happiness  to  believe, 
and  my  hope  to  be  able  to  show,  that,  according  to  the 
true  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and  according  to  the 
sentiments  of  the  fathers,  FREEDOM,  and  not  slavery,  is 
NATIONAL  ;  while  SLAVERY,  and  not  freedom,  is  SEC- 
TIONAL. In  duty  to  the  petitioners,  and  with  the  hope 
of  promoting  their  prayer,  I  move  the  reference  of  their 
petition  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary. 

A  brief  debate  ensued,  in  which  Messrs.  Mangum,  of  North 
Carolina,  Badger,  of  North  Carolina,  Hale,  of  New  Hampshire, 
Clemens,  of  Alabama,  Dawson,  of  Georgia,  Adams,  of  Mississippi, 
Butler,  of  South  Carolina,  and  Chase,  of  Ohio,  took  part ;  and, 
on  motion  of  Mr.  Badger,  the  memorial  was  laid  on  the  table. 


ON  THURSDAY,  27th  July,  the  subject  was  again  presented  by 
Mr.  Sumner  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Mr.  President,  I  have  a  Resolution 
which  I  desire  to  offer ;  and,  as  it  is  not  in  order  to 
debate  it  to-day,  I  give  notice  that  I  shall  expect  to 
call  it  up  to-morrow,  at  an  early  moment  in  the  morn- 
ing hour,  when  I  shall  throw  myself  upon  the  indul- 
gence of  the  Senate  to  be  heard  upon  it. 

The  Resolution  was  then  read,  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be  requested 
to  consider  the  expediency  of  reporting  a  bill  for  immediate  re- 
peal of  the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  September  18,  1850, 
usually  known  as  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act. 

In  pursuance  of  this  notice,  on  the  next  day,  28th  July,  during 
the  morning  hour,  an  attempt  was  made  by  Mr.  Sumner  to  call 
it  up. 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.      73 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Mr.  President,  I  now  ask  permis- 
sion of  the  Senate  to  take  up  the  Resolution  which  I 
offered  yesterday.  For  that  purpose,  I  move  that  the 
prior  orders  be  postponed,  and  upon  this  motion  I 
desire  to  say  a  word.  In  asking  the  Senate  to  take  up 
this  Resolution  for  consideration,  I  say  nothing  now  of 
its  merits,  nor  of  the  arguments  by  which  it  may  be 
maintained  ;  nor  do  I  at  this  stage  anticipate  any  objec- 
tions" to  it  on  these  grounds.  All  this  will  properly 
belong  to  the  discussion  of  the  Resolution  itself — the 
main  question  —  when  it  is  actually  before  the  Senate. 
The  single  question  now  is,  not  the  Resolution,  but 
whether  I  shall  be  heard  upon  it. 

As  a  Senator,  under  the  responsibilities  of  my  po- 
sition, I  have  deemed  it  my  duty  to  offer  this  Resolu- 
tion. I  may  seem  to  have  postponed  this  duty  to  an 
inconvenient  period  of  the  session,  but  had  I  attempted 
it  at  an  earlier  day,  I  might  have  exposed  myself  to  a 
charge  of  a  different  character.  It  might  then  have  been 
said  that,  a  new-comer  and  inexperienced  in  this  scene, 
without  deliberation,  —  hastily,  —  rashly,  —  recklessly, 
I  pushed  this  question  before  the  country.  This  is  not 
the  case  now.  I  have  taken  time,  and,  in  the  exercise 
of  my  most  careful  discretion,  at  last  ask  the  attention 
of  the  Senate.  I  shrink  from  any  appeal  founded  on  a 
trivial  personal  consideration  ;  but  should  I  be  blamed 
for  delay  latterly,  I  may  add,  that  though  in  my  seat 
daily,  my  bodily  health  for  some  time  past,  down  to  this 
very  week,  has  not  been  equal  to  the  service  I  have 
undertaken.  I  am  not  sure  that  it  is  now,  but  I  desire 
to  try. 

And  now  again  I  say,  the  question  is  simply  whether 
I  shall  be  heard.     In  allowing  me  this  privilege  —  this 
7 


74      FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAYEEY    SECTIONAL. 

right,  I  might  say  —  you  do  not  commit  yourselves  in 
any  way  to  the  principle  of  the  Resolution ;  but  you 
merely  follow  the  ordinary  usage  of  the  Senate,  and 
yield  to  a  brother  Senator  the  opportunity  which  he 
craves,  in  the  practical  discharge  of  his  duty,  to  express 
convictions  dear  to  his  heart,  and  dear  to  large  numbers 
of  his  constituents.  For  the  sake  of  these  constituents, 
for  my  own  sake,  I  now  desire  to  be  heard.  Make 
such  disposition  of  my  Resolution  afterward  as  to  you 
shall  seem  best ;  visit  upon  me  any  degree  of  criticism, 
censure,  or  displeasure,  but  do  not  deprive  me  of  a 
hearing.  "  Strike,  but  hear." 

A  debate  ensued,  in  which  Messrs.  Mason,  of  Virginia,  Brooke, 
of  Mississippi,  Charlton,  of  Georgia,  Shields,  of  Illinois,  Gwin, 
of  California,  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  Butler,  of  South  Carolina,  and 
Borland,  of  Arkansas,  took  part.  Objections  to  taking  up  the 
Resolution  were  pressed  on  the  ground  of  "  want  of  time,"  the 
"  lateness  of  the  session,"  and  "  danger  to  the  Union." 

The  question  being  then  taken  upon  the  motion  by  Mr.  Sumner 
to  take  up  his  Resolution,  it  was  rejected  —  Yeas  10,  Nays  32  • — 
as  follows :  tjL 

YEAS.  —  Messrs.  Clarke,  Davis,  Dodge,  of  Wisconsin, -Foote, 
Hamlin,  Seward,  Shields,  Sumner,  Upham,  and  Wade  —  10. 

NATS.  —  Messrs.  Borland,  Brodhead,  Brooke,  Cass,  Charlton, 
Clemens,  Desaussure,  Dodge,  of  Iowa,  Douglas,  Downs,  Felch, 
Fish,  Geyer,  Gwin,  Hunter,  King,  Mallory,  Mangum,  Mason, 
Meriwether,  Miller,  Morton,  Norris,  Pearce,  Pratt,  Rusk,  Sebas- 
tian, Smith,  Soule,  Spruance,  Toucey,  and  Weller —  32. 

Mr.  Sumner  was  thus  deprived  of  an  opportunity  to  present 
his  views  on  this  important  subject,  and  it  was  openly  asserted 
that  he  should  not  present  them  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  during 
the  pending  session.  He  was  thus  driven  to  watch  for  an  oppor- 
tunity, when,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  Senate,  he  might  be 
heard  without  impediment.  On  one  of  the  last  days  of  the 
session  it  came. 


FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.      75 

THURSDAY,  26th  August,  1852. —  The  Civil  and  Diplomatic 
Appropriation  Bill  being  under  consideration,  the  following 
amendment  was  moved  by  Mr.  Hunter,  of  Virginia,  on  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  Committee  on  Finance. 

"  That  where  the  ministerial  officers  of  the  United  States  have 
or  shall  incur  extraordinary  expenses  in  executing  the  laws 
thereof,  the  payment  of  which  is  not  specifically  provided  for, 
the  President  of  the  United  States  is  authorized  to  allow  the 
payment  thereof,  under  the  special  taxation  of  the  District  or 
Circuit  Court  of  the  District  in  which  the  said  services  have  been 
or  shall  be  rendered,  to  be  paid  from  the  appropriation  for  de- 
fraying the  expenses  of  the  Judiciary." 

Mr.  SUMNER  seized  the  opportunity  for  which  he  had  been 
watching,  and  at  once  moved  the  following  amendment  to  the 
amendment : 

"  Provided,  That  no  such  allowance  shall  be  authorized  for 
any  expenses  incurred  in  executing  the  Act  of  September  18, 
1850,  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  service  or  labor  ;  which 
said  Act  is  hereby  repealed." 

On  this  he  took  the  floor,  and  spoke  as  follows : 


MB.  PRESIDENT  :  Here  is  a  provision  for  extra- 
ordinary expenses  incurred  in  executing  the  laws  of 
the  United  States.  Extraordinary  expenses !  Sir,  be- 
neath these  specious  words  lurks  the  very  subject  on 
which,  by  a  solemn  vote  of  this  body,  I  was  refused  a 
hearing.  Here  it  is  ;  no  longer  open  to  the  charge  of 
being  an  "abstraction,"  but  actually  presented  for 
practical  legislation ;  not  introduced  by  me,  but  by 
the  Senator  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Hunter],  on  the  recom- 
mendation of  one  of  the  important  Committees  of  the 
Senate ;  not  brought  forward  weeks  ago,  when  there 
was  ample  time  for  discussion,  but  only  at  this  moment, 


76      FBEEDOM    KATIONAL  J    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

without  any  reference  to  the  late  period  of  the  session. 
The  amendment  which  I  now  offer,  proposes  to  remove 
one  chief  occasion  of  these  extraordinary  expenses. 
Beyond  all  controversy  or  cavil,  it  is  strictly  in  order. 
And  now,  at  last,  among  these  final  crowded  days  of 
our  duties  here,  but  at  this  earliest  opportunity,  I  am 
to  be  heard;  not  as  a  favor,  but  as  a  right.  The 
graceful  usages  of  this  body  may  be  abandoned,  but 
the  established  privileges  of  debate  cannot  be  abridged. 
Parliamentary  courtesy  may  be  forgotten,  but  parlia- 
mentary law  must  prevail.  The  subject  is  broadly 
before  the  Senate.  By  the  blessing  of  God,  it  shall  be 
discussed. 

Sir,  a  severe  lawgiver  of  early  Greece  vainly  sought 
to  secure  permanence  for  his  imperfect  institutions,  by 
providing  that  the  citizen  who,  at  any  time,  attempted 
their  alteration  or  repeal,  should  appear  in  the  public 
assembly  with  a  halter  about  his  neck,  ready  to  be 
drawn  if  his  proposition  failed  to  be  adopted.  A  tyran- 
nical spirit  among  us,  in  unconscious  imitation  of  this 
antique  and  discarded  barbarism,  seeks  to  surround  an 
offensive  institution  with  a  similar  safeguard.  In  the 
existing  distemper  of  the  public  mind  and  at  this 
present  juncture,  no  man  can  enter  upon  the  service 
which  I  now  undertake,  without  a  personal  responsi- 
bility, such  as  can  be  sustained  only  by  that  sense  of 
duty  which,  under  God,  is  always  our  best  support. 
That  personal  responsibility  I  accept.  Before  the  Sen- 
ate and  the  country  let  me  be  held  accountable  for  this 
act,  and  for  every  word  which  I  utter. 

With  m/Sdr,  there  is  no  alternative.  Painfully 
convinced  of  the  unutterable  wrongs  and  woes  of 
slavery;  profoundly  believing  that,  according  to  the 


FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.      77 

true  spirit  of  the  Constitution  and  the  sentiments  of 
the  fathers,  it  can  find  no  place  under  our  National 
Government  —  that  it  is  in  every  respect  sectional, 
and  in  no  respect  national  —  that  it  is  always  and 
everywhere  the  creature  and  dependent  of  the  States, 
and  never  anywhere  the  creature  or  dependent  of  the 
Nation,  and  that  the  Nation  can  never,  by  legislative 
or  other  act,  impart  to  it  any  support,  under  the  Con- 
stitution *of  the  United  States  ;  with  these  convictions, 
I  could  not  allow  this  session  to  reach  its  close, 
without  making  or  seizing  an  opportunity  to  declare 
myself  openly  against  the  usurpation,  injustice,  and 
cruelty,  of  the  late  enactment  by  Congress  for  the 
recovery  of  fugitive  slaves.  Full  well  I  know,  sir, 
the  difficulties  of  this  discussion,  arising  from  preju- 
dices of  opinion  and  from  adverse  conclusions,  strong 
and  sincere  as  my  own.  Full  well  I  know  that  I  am 
in  a  small  minority,  with  few  here  to  whom  I  may 
look  for  sympathy  or  support.  Full  well  I  know  that 
I  must  utter  things  unwelcome  to  many  in  this  body, 
which  I  cannot  do  without  pain.  Full  well  I  know 
that  the  institution  of  slavery  in  our  country,  which  I 
now  proceed  to  consider,  is  as  sensitive  as  it  is  power- 
ful —  possessing  a  power  to  shake  the  whole  land  with 
a  sensitiveness  that  shrinks  and  trembles  at  the  touch. 
But,  while  these  things  may  properly  prompt  me  to 
caution  and  reserve,  they  cannot  change  my  duty,  or 
my  determination  to  perform  it.  For  this  I  willingly 
forget  myself,  and  all  personal  consequences.  The 
favor  and  good-will  of  my  fellow-citizens,  of  my 
brethren  of  the  Senate,  sir,  —  grateful  to  me  as  it 
justly  is  —  I  am  ready,  if  required,  to  sacrifice.  All 
that  I  am  or  may  be,  I  freely  offer  to  this  cause. 
7* 


78     FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVEBY    SECTIONAL. 

And  here  allow  me,  for  one  moment,  to  refer  to 
myself  and  my  position.  Sir,  I  have  never  been  a 
politician.  The  slave  of  principles,  I  call  no  party 
master.  By  sentiment,  education,  and  conviction,  a 
friend  of  Human  Rights,  in  their  utmost  expansion,  I 
have  ever  most  sincerely  embraced  the  Democratic 
Idea;  not,  indeed,  as  represented  or  professed  by  any 
party,  but  according  to  its  real  significance,  as  trans- 
figured in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  in  the 
injunctions  of  Christianity.  In  this  idea  I  saw  no 
narrow  advantages  merely  for  individuals  or  classes, 
but  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  and  the  greatest 
happiness  of  all  secured  by  equal  laws.  Amidst  the 
vicissitudes  of  public  affairs,  I  trust  always  to  hold 
fast  to  this  idea,  and  to  any  political  party  which  truly 
embraces  it. 

Party  does  not  constrain  me ;  nor  is  my  indepen- 
dence lessened  by  any  relations  to  the  office  which 
gives  me  a  title  to  be  heard  on  this  floor.  And  here, 
sir,  I  may  speak  proudly.  By  no  effort,  by  no  desire 
of  my  own,  I  find  myself  a  Senator  of  the  United 
States.  Never  before  have  I  held  public  office  of  any 
kind.  With  the  ample  opportunities  of  private  life  I 
was  content.  No  tombstone  for  me  could  bear  a 
fairer  inscription  than  this :  "  Here  lies  one  who, 
without  the  honors  or  emoluments  of  public  station, 
did  something  for  his  fellow-man."  From  such  simple 
aspirations  I  was  taken  away  by  the  free  choice  of  my 
native  Commonwealth,  and  placed  in  this  responsible 
post  of  duty,  without  personal  obligation  of  any  kind, 
beyond  what  was  implied  in  my  life  and  published 
words.  The  earnest  friends,  by  whose  confidence  I 
was  first  designated,  asked  nothing  from  me,  and, 


FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  J    SLAVEBY    SECTIONAL.      79 

throughout  tlie  long  conflict  which  ended  in  my  elec- 
tion, rejoiced  in  the  position  which  I  most  carefully 
guarded.  To  all  my  language  was  uniform,  that  I  did 
not  desire  to  be  brought  forward;  that  I  would  do 
nothing  to  promote  the  result ;  that  I  had  no  pledges 
or  promises  to  offer ;  that  the  office  should  seek  me, 
and  not  I  the  office  ;  and  that  it  should  find  me  in  all 
respects  an  independent  man,  bound  to  no  party  and 
to  no  .human  being,  but  only,  according  to  my  best 
judgment,  to  act  for  the  good  of  all.  Again,  sir,  I 
speak  with  pride,  both  for  myself  and  others,  when  I 
add  that  these  avowals  found  a  sympathizing  response. 
In  this  spirit  I  have  come  here,  and  in  this  spirit  I 
shall  speak  to-day. 

Rejoicing  in  my  independence,  and  claiming  nothing 
from  party  ties,  I  throw  myself  upon  the  candor  and 
magnanimity  of  the  Senate.  I  now  ask  your  attention ; 
but  I  trust  not  to  abuse  it.  I  may  speak  strongly ; 
for  I  shall  speak  openly  and  from  the  strength  of  my 
convictions.  I  may  speak  warmly ;  for  I  shall  speak 
from  the  heart.  But  in  no  event  can  I  forget  the 
amenities  which  belong  to  debate,  and  which  especially 
become  this  body.  Slavery  I  must  condemn  with  my 
whole  soul ;  but  here  I  need  only  borrow  the  language 
of  slaveholders  themselves ;  nor  would  it  accord  with 
my  habits  or  my  sense  of  justice  to  exhibit  them  as 
the  impersonation  of  the  institution  —  Jefferson  calls  it 
the  "  enormity  "  —  which  they  cherish.  Of  them  I  do 
not  speak ;  but  without  fear  and  without  favor,  as 
without  impeachment  of  any  person,  I  assail  this 
wrong.  Again,  sir,  I  may  err ;  but  it  will  be  with 
the  Fathers.  I  plant  myself  on  the  ancient  ways  of 


80      FREEDOM    NATIONAL  J    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

the  Republic,  with  its  grandest  names,  its  surest  land- 
marks, and  all  its  original  altar-fires  about  me. 

And  now,  on  the  very  threshold,  I  encounter  the 
objection  that  there  is  a  final  settlement,  in  principle 
and  substance,  of  the  question  of  Slavery,  and  that  all 
discussion  of  it  is  closed.  Both  the  old  political  par- 
ties of  the  country,  by  formal  resolutions,  in  their 
recent  conventions  at  Baltimore,  have  united  in  this 
declaration.  On  a  subject  which  for  years  has  agitated 
the  public  mind ;  which  yet  palpitates  in  every  heart 
and  burns  on  every  tongue ;  which,  in  its  immeasura- 
ble importance,  dwarfs  all  other  subjects;  which,  by 
its  constant  and  gigantic  presence,  throws  a  shadow 
across  these  Halls ;  which  at  this  very  time  calls  for 
appropriations  to  meet  extraordinary  expenses  it  has 
caused,  they  have  imposed  the  rule  of  silence.  Ac- 
cording to  them,  sir,  we  may  speak  of  everything 
except  that  alone,  which  is  most  present  in  all  our 
minds. 

To  this  combined  effort  I  might  fitly  reply,  that, 
with  flagrant  inconsistency,  it  challenges  the  very  dis- 
cussion which  it  pretends  to  forbid.  Such  a  declara- 
tion, on  the  eve  of  an  election,  is,  of  course,  submitted 
to  the  consideration  and  ratification  of  the  people. 
Debate,  inquiry,  discussion,  are  the  necessary  conse- 
quence. Silence  becomes  impossible.  Slavery,  which 
you  profess  to  banish  from  the  public  attention,  openly 
by  your  invitation  enters  every  political  meeting  and 
every  political  convention.  Nay,  at  this  moment  it 
stalks  into  this  Senate,  crying,  like  the  daughters  of 
the  horseleech,  "  Give,  give  !  " 

But  no   unanimity   of  politicians    can   uphold   tho 


I-BEEDOM   NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     81 

baseless  assumption,  that  a  law,  or  any  conglomerate 
of  laws,  under  the  name  of  Compromise,  or  howsoever 
called,  is  final.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  this  ; 
that,  by  no  parliamentary  device  or  knot,  can  any 
Legislature  tie  the  hands  of  a  succeeding  Legislature, 
so  as  to  prevent  the  full  exercise  of  its  constitutional 
powers.  Each  Legislature,  under  a  just  sense  of  its 
responsibility,  must  judge  for  itself;  and,  if  it  think 
proper,  it  may  revise  or  amend,  or  absolutely  undo 
the  work  of  its  predecessors.  The  laws  of  the  Medes 
and  Persians  are  proverbially  said  to  have  been  un- 
alterable ;  but  they  stand  forth  in  history  as  a  single 
example  of  such  irrational  defiance  of  the  true  prin- 
ciples of  all  law. 

To  make  a  law  final,  so  as  not  to  be  reached  by 
Congress,  is,  by  mere  legislation,  to  fasten  a  new  pro- 
vision on  the  Constitution.  Nay,  more  ;  it  gives  to 
the  law  a  character  which  the  very  Constitution  does 
not  possess.  The  wise  fathers  did  not  treat  the  coun- 
try as  a  Chinese  foot,  never  to  grow  after  infancy ; 
but,  anticipating  Progress,  they  declared  expressly 
that  their  great  Act  is  not  final.  According  to  the 
Constitution  itself,  there  is  not  one  of  its  existing  pro- 
visions —  not  even  that  with  regard  to  fugitives  from 
labor  —  which  may  not  at  all  times  be  reached  by 
amendment,  and  thus  be  drawn  into  debate.  This  is 
rational  and  just.  Sir,  nothing  from  man's  hands, 
nor  law,  nor  constitution,  can  be  final.  Truth  alone 
is  final. 

Inconsistent  and  absurd,  this  effort  is  tyrannical 
also.  The  responsibility  for  the  recent  Slave  Act  and 
for  Slavery  everywhere  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Con- 
gress necessarily  involves  the  right  to  discuss  them. 


82      FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

To  separate  these  is  impossible.  Like  the  twenty-fifth 
rule  of  the  House  of  Representatives  against  petitions 
on  Slavery  —  now  repealed  and  dishonored  —  the 
Compromise,  as  explained  and  urged,  is  a  curtailment 
of  the  actual  powers  of  legislation,  and  a  perpetual 
denial  of  the  indisputable  principle  that  the  right  to 
deliberate  is  co-extensive  with  the  responsibility  for 
an  act.  To  sustain  Slavery,  it  is  now  proposed  to 
trample  on  free  speech.  In  any  country  this  would 
be  grievous ;  but  here,  where  the  Constitution  ex- 
pressly provides  against  abridging  freedom  of  speech, 
it  is  a  special  outrage.  In  vain  do  we  condemn  the 
despotisms  of  Europe,  while  we  borrow  the  rigors 
with  which  they  repress  Liberty,  and  guard  their  own 
uncertain  power.  For  myself,  in  no  factious  spirit, 
but  solemnly  and  in  loyalty  to  the  Constitution,  as  a 
Senator  of  the  United  States,  representing  a  free  Com- 
monwealth, I  protest  against  this  wrong.  On  Slavery, 
as  on  every  other  subject,  I  claim,  the  right  to  be  heard. 
That  right  I  cannot,  I  will  not  abandon.  "  Give  me 
the  liberty  to  know,  to  utter  and  to  argue  freely,  above 
all  liberties  ;  "  these  are  the  glowing  words  which 
flashed  from  the  soul  of  John  Milton,  in  his  struggles 
with  English  tyranny.  With  equal  fervor  they  should 
be  echoed  now  by  every  American,  not  already  a 
slave. 

But,  sir,  this  effort  is  impotent  as  tyrannical.  The 
convictions  of  the  heart  cannot  be  repressed.  The 
utterances  of  conscience  must  be  heard.  They  break 
forth  with  irrepressible  might.  As  well  attempt  to 
check  the  tides  of  Ocean,  the  currents  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, or  the  rushing  waters  of  Niagara.  The  discus- 
sion of  Slavery  will  proceed,  wherever  two  or  three  are 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAIi.      83 

gathered  together  —  by  the  fireside,  on  the  highway,  at 
the  public  meeting,  in  the  church.  The  movement 
against  Slavery  is  from  the  Everlasting  Arm.  Even 
now  it  is  gathering  its  forces,  soon  to  be  confessed 
everywhere.  It  may  not  yet  be  felt  in  the  high  places 
of  office  and  power ;  but  all  who  can  put  their  ears 
humbly  to  the  ground,  will  hear  and  comprehend  its 
incessant  and  advancing  tread. 
*  •* 

The  *  relations  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  —  I  speak  of  the  National  Government  —  to 
Slavery,  though  plain  and  obvious,  are  constantly  mis- 
understood. A  popular  belief  at  this  moment  makes 
Slavery  a  national  institution,  and,  of  course,  renders 
its  support  a  national  duty.  The  extravagance  of  this 
error  can  hardly  be  surpassed.  An  institution,  which  our 
fathers  most  carefully  omitted  to  name  in  the  Consti- 
tution, which,  according  to  the  debates  in  the  Conven- 
tion, they  refused  to  cover  with  any  "  sanction,"  and 
which,  at  the  original  organization  of  the  Government, 
was  merely  sectional,  existing  nowhere  on  the  national 
territory,  is  now,  above  all  other  things,  blazoned  as 
national.  Its  supporters  plume  themselves  as  national. 
The  old  political  parties,  while  upholding  it,  claim  to 
be  national.  A  National  Whig  is  simply  a  Slavery 
Whig,  and  a  National  Democrat  is  simply  a  Slavery 
Democrat,  in  contradistinction  to  all  who  regard  Slavery 
as  a  sectional  institution,  within  the  exclusive  control 
of  the  States,  and  with  which  the  nation  has  nothing 
to  do. 

As  Slavery  assumes  to  be  national,  so,  by  an  equally 
strange  perversion,  Freedom  is  degraded  to  be  sectional, 
and  all  who  uphold  it,  under  the  national  Constitution, 


84    FREEDOM;  NATIONAL  ;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAI. 

share  this  same  epithet.  The  honest  efforts  to  secure 
its  blessings,  everywhere  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
Congress,  are  scouted  as  sectional ;  and  this  cause, 
which  the  founders  of  our  National  Government  had 
so  much  at  heart,  is  called  sectionalism.  These  terms, 
now  belonging  to  the  commonplaces  of  political  speech, 
are  adopted  and  misapplied  by  most  persons  without 
reflection.  But  herein  is  the  power  of  Slavery.  Ac- 
cording to  a  curious  tradition  of  the  French  language, 
Louis  XIV.,  the  grand  monarch,  by  an  accidental  error 
of  speech,  among  supple  courtiers,  changed  the  gender 
of  a  noun  ;  but  Slavery  has  done  more.  It  has  changed 
word  for  word.  It  has  taught  men  to  say  national 
instead  of  sectional,  and  sectional  instead  of  national. 

Slavery  national !  Sir,  this  is  all  a  mistake  and 
absurdity,  fit  to  take  a  place  in  some  new  collection 
of  Vulgar  Errors,  by  some  other  Sir  Thomas  Browne, 
with  the  ancient  but  exploded  stories,  that  the  toad 
has  a  stone  in  its  head,  and  that  ostriches  digest  iron. 
According  to  the  true  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and 
the  sentiments  of  the  Fathers,  Slavery  and  not  Free- 
dom is  sectional,  while  Freedom  and  not  Slavery  is 
national.  On  this  unanswerable  proposition  I  take 
my  stand,  and  here  commences  my  argument. 

The  subject  presents  itself  under  two  principal  heads ; 
FIRST,  the  true  relations  of  the  National  Government 
to  Slavery,  wherein  it  will  appear  that  there  is  no 
national  fountain  out  of  which  Slavery  can  be  derived, 
and  no  national  power,  under  the  Constitution,  by 
which  it  can  be  supported.  Enlightened  by  this 
general  survey,  we  shall  be  prepared  to  consider, 
SECONDLY,  the  true  nature  of  the  provision  for  the 
rendition  of  fugitives  from  service,  and  herein  espec- 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.       85 

ially  the  unconstitutional  and  offensive  legislation  of 
Congress  in  pursuance  thereof. 

I.  And  now  for  the  TRUE  RELATIONS  OF  THE 
NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT  TO  SLAVERY.  These  will 
be  readily  apparent,  if  we  do  not  neglect  well-estab- 
lished principles. 

If  Slavery  be  national,  if  there  be  any  power  in  the 
National  Government  to  uphold  this  institution  —  as 
in  the  recent  Slave  Act  —  it  must  be  by  virtue  of  the 
Constitution.  Nor  can  it  be  by  mere  inference,  im- 
plication, or  conjecture.  According  to  the  uniform 
admission  of  courts  and  jurists  in  Europe,  again  and 
again  promulgated  in  our  country,  Slavery  can  be  de- 
rived only  from  clear  and  special  recognition.  "  The 
state  of  Slavery,"  said  Lord  Mansfield,  pronouncing 
judgment  in  the  great  case  of  Somersett,  "is  of  such 
a  nature,  that  it  is  incapable  of  being  introduced  on 
any  reasons  moral  or  political,  but  only  by  positive 
law.  It  is  so  odious,  that  nothing  can  be  suffered 
to  support  it  but  POSITIVE  LAW."  *  And  a  slavehold- 
ing  tribunal,  —  the  Supreme  Court  of  Mississippi,  — 
adopting  the  same  principle,  has  said : 

"  Slavery  is  condemned  by  reason,  and  the  laws  of  nature.  It 
exists  and  can  exist  only  through  municipal  regulations. : '  — 
(Harry  T.  Decker,  Walker,  R.  42.) 

And   another   slaveholding    tribunal,  —  the   Supreme 
Court  of  Kentucky,  —  has  said  : 

"  We  view  this  as  a  right  existing  by  positive  law  of  a  muni- 
cipal character,  without  foundation  in  the  law  of  nature  or  the 
unwritten  and  common  law."  —  (Rankin  v.  Lydia,  2  Marshall, 
470.) 

*  Howell's  State  Trials,  vol.  20,  p.  82. 
8 


86      FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

Of  course  every  power  to  uphold  Slavery  must  have  an 
origin  as  distinct  as  that  of  Slavery  itself.  Every 
presumption  must  be  as  strong  against  such  a  power 
as  against  Slavery.  A  power  so  peculiar  and  offen- 
sive —  so  hostile  to  reason  —  so  repugnant  to  the  law  of 
nature  and  the  inborn  Rights  of  Man  ;  which  despoils 
its  victims  of  the  fruits  of  their  labor ;  which  sub- 
stitutes concubinage  for  marriage ;  which  abrogates 
the  relation  of  parent  and  child ;  which,  by  a  denial 
of  education,  abases  the  intellect,  prevents  a  true 
knowledge  of  God,  and  murders  the  very  soul ;  which, 
amidst  a  plausible  physical  comfort,  degrades  man, 
created  in  the  Divine  image,  to  the  level  of  a  beast ;  — 
such  a  power,  so  eminent,  so  transcendent,  so  tyran- 
nical, so  unjust,  can  find  no  place  in  any  system  of 
Government,  unless  by  virtue  of  positive  sanction.  It 
can  spring  from  no  doubtful  phrases.  It  must  be 
declared  by  unambiguous  words,  incapable  of  a  double 
sense. 

Slavery,  I  now  repeat,  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
Constitution.  The  name  Slave  does  not  pollute  this 
Charter  of  our  Liberties.  No  "positive"  language 
gives  to  Congress  any  power  to  make  a  Slave  or  to 
hunt  a  Slave.  To  find  even  any  seeming  sanction  for 
either,  we  must  travel,  with  doubtful  footsteps,  beyond 
its  express  letter,  into  the  region  of  interpretation. 
But  here  are  rules  which  cannot  be  disobeyed.  "With 
electric  might  for  Freedom,  they  send  a  pervasive 
influence  through  every  provision,  clause,  and  word  of 
the  Constitution.  Each  and  all  make  Slavery  impossi- 
ble as  a  national  institution.  They  efface  from  the 
Constitution  every  fountain  out  of  which  it  can  be 
derived. 


FREEDOM:  NATIONAL  ;   SLAVERY  SECTIONAL.     87 

First  and  foremost,  is  the  Preamble.  This  discloses 
the  prevailing  objects  and  principles  of  the' Constitu- 
tion. This  is  the  vestibule  through  which  all  must 
pass,  who  would  enter  the  sacred  temple.  Here  are  the 
inscriptions  by  which  they  are  earliest  impressed.  Here 
they  first  catch  the  genius  of  the  place.  Here  the  proc- 
lamation of  Liberty  is  soonest  heard.  "  We  the  People 
of  the  United  States,"  says, the  Preamble,  "  in  order  to 
form  a  mere  perfect  Union,  establish  justice,  insure 
domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common  defence, 
promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings 
of  Liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain 
and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United  States 
of  America."  Thus,  according  to  undeniable  words, 
the  Constitution  was  ordained,  not  to  establish,  secure, 
or  sanction  Slavery  —  not  to  promote  the  special  in- 
terests of  slaveholders  —  not  to  make  Slavery  national, 
in  any  way,  form,  or  manner ;  but  to  "  establish  jus- 
tice," "promote  the  general  welfare,"  and  "secure 
the  blessings  of  Liberty."  Here,  surely,  Liberty  is 
national. 

Secondly.  Next  in  importance  to  the  Preamble  are 
the  explicit  contemporaneous  declarations  in  the  Con- 
vention which  framed  the  Constitution,  and  elsewhere, 
expressed  in  different  forms  of  language,  but  all  tend- 
ing to  the  same  conclusion.  By  the  Preamble,  the 
Constitution  speaks  for  Freedom.  By  these  declara- 
tions, the  Fathers  speak  as  the  Constitution  speaks. 
Early  in  the  Convention,  Gouverneur  Morris,  of  Penn- 
sylvania, broke  forth  in  the  language  of  an  Abolition- 
ist :  "  He  never  would  concur  in  upholding  domestic 
slavery.  It  was  a  nefarious  institution.  It  was  the 
curse  of  Heaven  on  the  State  where  it  prevailed." 


88      FEEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;     SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

Oliver  Ellsworth,  of  Connecticut,  said  :  "  The  morality 
or  wisdom  of  Slavery  are  considerations  belonging  to 
the  States  themselves."  According  to  him,  Slavery 
was  sectional. 

At  a  later  day,  a  discussion  ensued  on  the  clause 
touching  the  African  slave  trade,  which  reveals  the 
definitive  purposes  of  the  Convention.  From  the  re- 
port of  Mr.  Madison  we  learn  what  was  said.  Elbridge 
Gerry,  of  Massachusetts,  "  thought  we  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  conduct  of  the  States  as  to  Slavery,  but  we 
ought  to  be  careful  not  to  give  any  sanction  to  it." 
According  to  these  words,  he  regarded  Slavery  as 
sectional,  and  would  not  make  it  national.  Roger 
Sherman,  of  Connecticut,  "  was  opposed  to  any  tax 
on  slaves  imported,  as  making  the  matter  worse,  be- 
cause it  implied  they  were  property.  He  would  not 
have  Slavery  national.  After  debate,  the  subject  was 
committed  to  a  Committee  of  eleven,  who  subsequently 
reported  a  substitute,  authorizing  "  a  tax  on  such 
migration  or  importation,  at  a  rate  not  exceeding  the 
average  of  duties  laid  on  imports."  This  language, 
classifying  persons  with  merchandise,  seemed  to  imply 
a  recognition  that  they  were  property.  Mr.  Sherman 
at  once  declared  himself  "  against  this  part,  as  ac- 
knowledging men  to  be  property,  by  taxing  them  as 
such  under  the  character  of  slaves."  Mr.  Gorham 
"  thought  Mr.  Sherman  should  consider  the  duty  not 
as  implying  that  slaves  are  property,  but  as  a  dis- 
couragement to  the  importation  of  them."  Mr.  Madi- 
son in  mild  juridical  phrase,  "  tliought  it  wrong  to 
admit  in  the  Constitution  the  idea  that  there  could  be 
property  in  man."  After  discussion  it  was  finally 
agreed  to  make  the  clause  read : 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;     SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.       89 

"  But  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  importation,  not 
exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  person." 

The  difficulty  seemed  then  to  be  removed,  and  the 
whole  clause  was  adopted.  This  record  demonstrates 
that  the  word  "persons"  was  employed  in  order  to 
show  that  slaves,  everywhere  under  the  Constitution-, 
were  always  to  be  regarded  as  persons,  and  not  as 
property,  ,and  thus  to  exclude  frojn  the  Constitution 
all  idea  that  there  can  be  property  in  man.  Remem- 
ber well,  that  Mr.  Sherman  was  opposed  to  the  clause 
in  its  original  form,  "  as  acknowledging  men  to  be 
property ;"  that  Mr.  Madison  was  also  opposed  to  it, 
because  he  '"  thought  it  wrong  to  admit  in  the  Consti- 
tution the  idea  that  there  could  be  property  in  man ;  " 
and  that,  after  these  objections,  the  clause  was  so 
amended  as  to  exclude  the  idea.  But  Slavery  can- 
not be  national,  unless  this  idea  is  distinctly  and 
unequivocally  admitted  into  the  Constitution. 

But  the  evidence  still  accumulates.  At  a  still  later 
day  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  as  if  to  set 
the  seal  upon  the  solemn  determination  to  have  no 
sanction  of  Slavery  in  the  Constitution,  the  word 
"servitude"  which  appeared  in  the  clause  on  the 
apportionment  of  representation  was  struck  out,  and 
the  word  "  service  "  inserted.  This  was  done  on  the 
motion  of  Mr.  Randolph,  of  Virginia,  and  the  reason 
assigned  for  this  substitution,  according  to  Mr.  Madison, 
in  his  authentic  report  of  the  debate,  was  that  "  the 
former  was  thought  to  express  the  condition  of  slaves, 
and  the  latter  the  obligations  of  free  persons."  With^ 
such  care  was  Slavery  excluded  from  the  Constitution. 

Nor  is  this  all.     In  the  Massachusetts  Convention, 
8* 


90       FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;     SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

to  which  the  Constitution,  when  completed,  was  sub- 
mitted for  ratification,  a  veteran  of  the  Revolution, 
General  Heath,  openly  declared  that,  according  to  his 
view,  Slavery  was  sectional,  and  not  national.  His 
language  was  pointed.  "  I  apprehend,"  he  says,  "  that 
it  is  not  in  our  power  to  do  anything  for  or  against 
those  who  are  in  Slavery  in  the  Southern  States.  No 
gentleman  within  these  walls  detests  every  idea  of 
Slavery  more  than  .1  do ;  it  is  generally  detested  by 
people  of  this  Commonwealth ;  and  I  ardently  hope 
the  time  will  soon  come,  when  our  brethren  in  the 
Southern  States  will  view  it  as  we  do,  and  put  a  stop 
to  it ;  but  to  this  we  have  no  right  to  compel  them. 
Two  questions  naturally  arise  :  If  we  ratify  the  Con- 
stitution, shall  we  do  anything  by  our  act  to  hold  the 
blacks  in  slavery  —  or  shall  we  become  partakers  in 
other  men's  sins  ?  I  think  neither  of  them." 

Afterwards,  in  the  first  Congress  under  the  Consti- 
tution, on  a  motion  which  was  much  debated,  to 
introduce  into  the  Impost  Bill  a  duty  on  the  importa- 
tion of  Slaves,  the  same  Roger  Sherman,  who  in  the 
National  Convention  had  opposed  the  idea  of  property 
in  man,  authoritatively  exposed  the  true  relations  of 
the  Constitution  to  Slavery.  His  language  was,  that 
"  The  Constitution  does  not  consider  these  persons  as 
property  ;  it  speaks  of  them  as  persons." 

Thus  distinctly  and  constantly,  from  the  very  lips 
of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  we  learn  the  false- 
hood of  the  recent  assumptions  in  favor  of  Slavery  and 
in  derogation  of  Freedom. 

Thirdly.  According  to  a  familiar  rule  of  interpre- 
tation, all  laws  concerning  the  same  matter,  in  pari 
materia,  are  to  be  construed  together.  By  the  same 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.       91 

reason,  the  grand  political  acts  of  the  Nation  are  to  be 
construed  together,  giving  and  receiving  light  from 
each  other.  Earlier  than  the  Constitution  was  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  embodying,  in  immortal 
words,  those  primal  truths  to  which  our  country 
pledged  itself  with  its  baptismal  vows  as  a  Nation. 
"  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,"  says  the 
Nation,  "  that  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that  they  are 
endowed  ^by  their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable 
rights ;  that  among  them  are  life,  liberty,  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness ;  that  to  secure  these  rights 
governments  are  instituted  among  men,  deriving  their 
just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed."  But 
this  does  not  stand  alone.  There  is  another  national 
act  of  similar  import.  On  the  successful  close  of  the 
Revolution,  the  Continental  Congress,  in  an  address 
to  the  people,  repeated  the  same  lofty  truth.  "  Let  it 
be  remembered,"  said  the  Nation  again,  "  that  it  has 
ever  been  the  pride  and  the  boast  of  America,  that  the 
rights  for  which  she  has  contended  were  the  rights  of 
human  nature.  By  the  blessing  of  the  Author  of  these 
rights,  they  have  prevailed  over  all  opposition,  and 
FORM  THE  BASIS  of  thirteen  independent  States." 
Such  were  the  acts  of  the  Nation  in  its  united  capacity. 
Whatever  may  be  the  privileges  of  States  in  their 
individual  capacities,  within  their  several  local  juris- 
dictions, no  power  can  be  attributed  to  the  Nation,  in 
the  absence  of  positive,  unequivocal  grant,  inconsistent 
with  these  two  national  declarations.  Here,  sir,  is  the 
national  heart,  the  national  soul,  the  national  will,  the 
national  voice,  which  must  inspire  our  interpretation 
of  the  Constitution,  and  enter  into  and  diffuse  itself 


92      FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  J     SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

through  all  the  national  legislation.  Thus  again  is 
Freedom  national. 

Fourthly.  Beyond  these  is  a  principle  of  the  com- 
mon law,  clear,  and  indisputable,  a  supreme  rule  of 
interpretation  from  which  in  this  case  there  can-  be  no 
appeal.  In  any  question  under  the  Constitution  every 
word  is  to  le  construed  in  favor  of  liberty.  This  rule, 
which  commends  itself  to  the  natural  reason,  is  sus- 
tained by  time-honored  maxims  of  our  early  jurispru- 
dence. Blackstone  aptly  expresses  it,  when  he  says, 
that  "  The  law  is  always  ready  to  catch  at  anything  in 
favor  of  liberty."  *  The  rule  is  repeated  in  various 
forms.  Fax  ores  ampliandi  sunt ;  odia  restringenda. 
Favors  are  to  be  amplified  ;  hateful  things  to  be  re- 
strained. Lex  Anglice  est  lex  misericordicR.  The  law 
of  England  is  a  law  of  mercy.  Anglia  jura  in  omni 
casu  libertati  dant  favorem.  The  laws  of  England  in 
every  case  show  favor  to  liberty.  And  this  sentiment 
breaks  forth  in  natural,  though  intense,  force,  in  the 
maxim :  Impius  et  crudelis  judicandus  est  qui  libertati 
non  favet.  He  is  to  be  adjudged  impious  and  cruel 
who  does  not  favor  liberty.  Reading  the  Constitution 
in  the  admonition  of  these  rules,  again  I  say  Freedom 
is  national. 

Fifthly.  From  a  learned  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  in  an  opinion  of  the  court,  we 
derive  the  same  lesson.  In  considering  the  question, 
whether  a  State  can  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves 
as  merchandise,  and  whether  Congress,  in  the  exercise 
of  its  power  to  regulate  commerce  among  the  States, 
can  interfere  with  the  slave-trade  between  the  States,  a 

*  2  Blatok.  Com.  94. 


FBJEZDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVJEUY    SECTIONAL.      93 

principle  has  been  enunciated,  which,  while  protecting 
the  trade  from  any  intervention  of  Congress  declares 
openly  that  the  Constitution  acts  upon  no  man  as 
property.  Mr.  Justice  McLean  says  :  "If  slaves  are 
considered  in  some  of  the  States  as  merchandise,  that 
cannot  divest  them  of  the  leading  and  controlling 
quality  of  persons  by  which  they  are  designated  in  the 
Constitution.  The  character  of  property  is  given  them 
by  the  localliaw.  This  law  is  respected,  and  all  rights 
under  it  are  .protected  by  the  Federal  authorities  ;  but 
the  Constitution  acts  upon  slaves  as  PERSONS  and  not  as 
property.  ..."  The  power  over  Slavery  belongs 
to  the  States  respectively.  It  is  local  in  its  character, 
and  in  its  effects."  *  Here  again  Slavery  is  sectional, 
while  Freedom  is  national. 

Sir,  such,  briefly,  are  the  rules  of  interpretation  which, 
as  applied  to  the  Constitution,  fill  it  with  the  breath  of 
Freedom, 

"  Driving  far  off  each  thing  of  sin  and  guilt." 

To  the  history  and  prevailing  sentiments  of  the  times 
we  may  turn  for  further  assurance.  In  the  Spirit  of 
Freedom  the  Constitution  was  formed.  In  this  spirit 
our  Fathers  always  spoke  and  acted.  In  this  spirit  the 
National  Government  was  first  organized  under  Wash- 
ington. And  here  I  recall  a  scene,  in  itself  a  touch- 
stone of  the  period,  and  an  example  for  us,  upon  which 
we  may  look  with  pure  national  pride,  while  we  learn 
anew  the  relations  of  the  National  Government  to 
Slavery. 

The  Revolution  had  been  accomplished.     The  feeble 

*  Groves  v.  Slaughter,  15  Peters,  R.  507. 


94      FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

Government  of  the  Confederation  had  passed  away. 
The  Constitution,  slowly  matured  in  a  National  Con- 
vention, discussed  before  the  people,  defended  by  mas- 
terly pens,  had  been  already  adopted.  The  thirteen 
States  stood  forth  a  nation,  wherein  was  unity  without 
consolidation,  and  diversity  without  discord.  The 
hopes  of  all  were  anxiously  hanging  upon  the  new 
order  of  things  and  the  mighty  procession  of  events. 
With  signal  unanimity  Washington  was  chosen  Pres- 
ident. Leaving  his  home  at  Mount  Vernon,  he  re- 
paired to  New  York,  —  where  the  first  Congress  had 
already  commenced  its  session,  —  to  assume  his  place 
as  elected  Chief  of  the  Republic.  On  the  thirtieth  of 
April,  1789,  the  organization  of  the  Government  was 
completed  by  his  inaguration.  Entering  the  Senate 
Chamber,  where  the  two  Houses  were  assembled,  he 
was  informed  that  they  awaited  his  readiness  to  re- 
ceive the  oath  of  office.  Without  delay,  attended  by 
the  Senators  and  Representatives,  with  friends  and 
men  of  mark  gathered  about  him,  he  moved  to  the 
balcony  in  front  of  the  edifice.  A  countless  multitude, 
thronging  the  open  street,  and  eagerly  watching  this 
great  espousal, 

"  With  reverence  look  on  his  majestic  face, 
Proud  to  be  less,  but  of  his  god-like  race."  * 

The  oath  was  administered  by  the  Chancellor  of  New 
York.  At  this  time,  and  in  this  presence,  beneath 
the  uncovered  heavens,  Washington  first  took  this  vow 
upon  his  lips  :  "  I  do  solemnly  swear  that  I  will  faith- 
fully execute  the  office  of  President  of  the  United 

*  Dryden. 


FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL.    95 

States,  and  will  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  preserve, 
protect  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States." 

Over  the  President,  on  this  high  occasion,  floated 
the  national  flag,  with  its  stripes  of  red,  and  its  stars 
on  a  field  of  blue.  As  his  patriot  eyes  rested  upon 
the  glowing  ensign,  what  'currents  must  have  rushed 
swiftly  thromgh  his  soul !  In  the  early  days  of  the 
Revolution,  in  those  darkest  hours  about  Boston, 
after  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  and  before  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence,  the  thirteen  stripes  had  been 
first  unfurled  by  him,  as  the  emblem  of  Union  among 
the  Colonies  for  the  sake  of  Freedom.  By  him,  at 
that  time,  they  had  been  named  the  Union  Flag. 
Trial,  struggle  and  war,  were  now  ended,  and  the 
Union,  which  they  first  heralded,  was  unalterably  es- 
tablished. To  every  beholder,  these  memories  must 
have  been  full  of  pride  and  consolation.  But  looking 
back  upon  the  scene,  there  is  one  circumstance  which, 
more  than  all  its  other  associations,  fills  the  soul ; 
more  even  than  the  suggestions  of  Union,  which  I 
prize  so  much.  AT  THIS  MOMENT,  WHEN  WASH- 
INGTON TOOK  HIS  FIRST  OATH  TO  SUPPORT  THE 

CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  THE  NA- 
TIONAL ENSIGN,  NOWHERE  WITHIN  THE  NATIONAL 
TERRITORY,  COVERED  A  SINGLE  SLAVE.  Then,  in- 
deed, was  Slavery  sectional,  and  Freedom  national. 

On  the  sea,  an  execrable  piracy,  the  trade  in  slaves, 
was  still,  to  the  national  scandal,  tolerated  under  the 
national  flag.  In  the  States,  as  a  sectional  institution, 
beneath  the  shelter  of  local  laws,  Slavery  unhappily 
found  a  home.  But  in  the  only  territories  at  this  time 
belonging  to  the  nation,  the  broad  region  of  the 


96      FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIOXAL. 

North-west,  it  had  already,  by  the  Ordinance  of  Free- 
dom, been  made  impossible,  even  before  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution.  The  District  of  Columbia,  with 
its  fatal  incumbrance,  had  not  yet  been  acquired. 

The  Government  thus  organized  was  Anti-Slavery 
in  character.  Washington  was  a  slave-holder  ;  but  it 
would  be  unjust  to  his  memory  not  to  say  that  he  was 
an  Abolitionist  also.  His  opinions  do  not  admit  of 
question.  Only  a  short  time  before  the  formation  of 
the  National  Constitution,  he  had  declared,  by  letter, 
"  That  it  was  among  his  first  wishes  to  see  some  plan 
adopted,  by  which  Slavery  may  be  abolished  by  law ;  " 
and  again,  in  another  letter,  "  That,  in  support  of  any 
legislative  measure  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  his 
suffrage  should  not  be  wanting  ;  "  and  still  further,  in 
conversation  with  a  distinguished  European  Abolition- 
ist, a  travelling  propagandist  of  Freedom,  Brissot  de 
Warville,  recently  Avelcomed  to  Mount  Vernon,  he 
had  openly  announced,  that  to  promote  this  object  in 
Virginia,  "  He  desired  the  formation  of  a  SOCIETY, 
and  that  he  would  second  it."  By  this  authentic  tes- 
timony, he  takes  his  place  with  the  early  patrons 
of  Abolition  Societies. 

By  the  side  of  Washington,  as  standing  beneath  the 
national  flag  he  swore  to  support  the  Constitution, 
were  illustrious  men,  whose  lives  and  recorded  words 
now  rise  in  judgment.  There  was  John  Adams,  the 
Vice-President  —  great  vindicator  and  final  negotiator 
of  our  national  independence  —  whose  soul,  flaming 
with  freedom,  broke  forth  in  the  early  declaration, 
that  "  Consenting  to  Slavery  is  a  sacrilegious  breach  of 
trust,"  and  whose  immitigable  hostility  to  this  wrong 
has  been  made  immortal  in  his  descendants.  There 


FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.      97 

also  was  a  companion  in  arms,  and  attached  friend  of 
incomparable  genius,  the  yet  youthful  Hamilton,  who, 
as  a  member  of  the  Abolition  Society  of  New  York, 
had  only  recently  united  in  a  solemn  petition  for  those 
who,  "  though  free  by  the  laws  of  God,  are  held  in 
Slavery  by  the  laws  of  the  State.".  There,  too,  was  a 
noble  spirit,  the  ornament  of  his  country,  the  exemplar 
of  truth  ^.nd  virtue,  who,  like  the  sun,  ever  held  an 
unerring  course,  John  Jay.  Filling  the  important 
post  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  under  the  Confed- 
eration, he  found  time  to  organize  the  Abolition  Soci- 
ety of  New  York,  and  to  act  as  its  President,  until, 
by  the  nomination  of  Washington,  he  became  Chief 
Justice  of  the  United  States.  In  his  sight,  Slavery 
was  an  "  iniquity,"  "  a  sin  of  crimson  dye,"  against 
which  ministers  of  the  gospel  should  testify,  and 
which  the  Government  should  seek  in  every  way  to 
abolish.  "  Were  I  in  the  legislature,"  he  wrote,  "  I 
would  present  a  bill  for  this  purpose  with  great  care, 
and  I  would  never  cease  moving  it  till  it  became  a 
law,  or  I  ceased  to  be  a  member.  Till  America  comes 
into  this  measure,  her  prayers  to  heaven  will  be  im- 
pious." 

But  they  were  not  alone.  The  convictions  and 
earnest  aspirations  of  the  country  were  with  them. 
At  the  North  these  were  broad  and  general.  At  the 
South  they  found  fervid  utterance  from  slaveholders. 
By  early  and  precocious  efforts  for  "  total  emancipa- 
tion," the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
placed  himself  foremost  among  the  Abolitionists  of  the 
land.  In  language  now  familiar  to  all,  and  which  can 
never  die,  he  perpetually  denounced  Slavery.  He 
exposed  its  pernicious  influences  upon  master  as  well 
9 


98      FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

as  slave ;  declared  that  tlie  love  of  justice  and  the  love 
of  country  pleaded  equally  for  the  slave,  and  that  the 
"  abolition  of  domestic  slavery  was  the  greatest  ob- 
ject of  desire."  He  believed  that  the  "  sacred  side 
was  gaining  daily  recruits,"  and  confidently  looked  to 
the  young  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  good  work. 
In  fitful  sympathy  with  Jefferson,  was  another  hon- 
ored son  of  Virginia,  the  Orator  of  Liberty,  Patrick 
Henry,  who,  while  confessing  that  he  was  a  master  of 
slaves,  said :  "  I  will  not,  I  cannot  justify  it.  How- 
ever culpable  my  conduct,  I  will  so  far  pay  my  devoir 
to  virtue,  as  to  own  the  excellence  and  rectitude  of 
her  precepts,  and  lament  my  want  of  conformity  to 
them."  At  this  very  period,  in  the  Legislature  of 
Maryland,  on  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  oppressed  slaves, 
a  young  man,  afterwards  by  his  consummate  learning 
and  forensic  powers,  the  acknowledged  head  of  the 
American  bar,  William  Pinkney,  in  a  speech  of  earnest, 
truthful  eloquence  —  better  far  for  his  memory  than  his 
transcendent  professional  fame  —  branded  Slavery  as 
"  iniquitous  and  most  dishonorable  ;  "  "  founded  in 
a  disgraceful  traffic;  "  "as  shameful  in  its  continuance 
as  in  its  origin ; ''  and  he  openly  declared,  that,  "  By 
the  eternal  principles  of  natural  justice,  no  master  in 
the  State  has  a  right  to  hold  his  slave  in  bondage  a 
single  hour." 

Thus  at  this  time  spoke  the  NATION.  The  CHURCH 
also  joined  its  voice.  And  here,  amidst  the  diversities 
of  religious  faith,  it  is  instructive  to  observe  the 
general  accord.  The  Quakers  first  bore  their  testi- 
mony. At  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  their 
whole  body,  under  the  early  teaching  of  George  Fox, 
and  by  the  crowning  exertions  of  Benezet  and  Wool- 


FKEEDOM:  NATIONAL  ;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL.    99 

man,  had  become  an  organized  band  of  Abolitionists, 
penetrate'd  by  the  conviction  that  it  was  unlawful  to 
hold  a  fellow-man  in  bondage.  The  Methodists,  nu- 
merous, earnest  and  faithful,  never  ceased  by  their 
preachers  to  proclaim  the  same  truth.  Their  rules  in 
1788  denounced,  in  formal  language,  "  the  buying  or 
selling  of  bodies  and  souls  of  men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren, with  an  intention  to  enslave  them."  The  words 
of  their  great  apostle,  John  Wesley,  were  constantly 
repeated.  On  the  eve  of  the  National  Convention  the 
burning  tract  was  circulated,  in  which  he  exposes 
American  slavery  as  the  "vilest"  of  the  world  — 
"  such  Slavery  as  is  not  found  among  the  Turks  at 
Algiers  ;  "  and,  after  declaring  "  Liberty  the  birthright 
of  every  human  creature,  of  which  no  human  law  can 
deprive  him,"  he  pleads,  "  If,  therefore,  you  have  any 
regard  to  justice,  (to  say  nothing  of  mercy  or  the 
revealed  law  of  God,)  render  unto  all  their  due.  Give 
liberty  to  whom  liberty  is  due,  that  is,  to  every  child 
of  man,  to  every  partaker  of  human  nature.''  At  the 
same  time,  the  Presbyterians,  a  powerful  religious 
body,  inspired  by  the  principles  of  John  Calvin,  in 
more  moderate  language,  but  by  a  public  act,  recorded 
their  judgment,  recommending  "  to  all  the  people 
under  their  care  to  use  the  most  prudent  measures 
consistent  with  the  interest  and  the  state  of  civil  so- 
ciety, to  procure  eventually  the  fnal  abolition  of  Sla- 
very in  America."  The  Congregationalists  of  New- 
England,  also  of  the  faith  of  John  Calvin,  and  with  the 
hatred  of  Slavery  belonging  to  the  great  non-conform- 
ist, Richard  Baxter,  were  sternly  united  against  this 
wrong.  As  early  as  1776,  Samuel  Hopkins,  their 
eminent  leader  and  divine,  published  his  tract,  show- 


100     FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

ing  it  to  be  the  Duty  and  Interest  of  the  American 
States  to  emancipate  all  their  African  slaves,  and 
declaring  that  "  Slavery  is  in  every  instance  wrong, 
unrighteous  and  oppressive  —  a  very  great  and  crying 
sin — there  being  nothing  of  the  kind  equal  to  it  on 
the  face  of  the  earth."  And,  in  1791,  shortly  after 
the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the  second  Jonathan 
Edwards,  a  twice-honored  name,  in  an  elaborate  dis- 
course often  published,  called  upon  his  country,  "  in 
the  present  blaze  of  light "  on  the  injustice  of  slavery, 
to  prepare  the  way  for  "  its  total  abolition."  This  he 
gladly  thought  at  hand.  "If  we  judge  of  the  future 
by  the  past,"  said  the  celebrated  preacher,  "  within 
fifty  years  from  this  time,  it  will  be  as  shameful  for  a 
man  to  hold  a  negro  slave,  as  to  be  guilty  of  common 
robbery,  or  theft." 

Thus,  at  this  time,  the  Church,  in  harmony  with  the 
Nation,  by  its  leading  denominations,  Quakers,  Meth- 
odists, Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists,  thundered 
against  Slavery.  The  COLLEGES  were  in  unison  with 
the  Church.  Harvard  University  spoke  by  the  voice 
of  Massachusetts,  which  had  already  abolished  Slavery. 
Dartmouth  College,  by  one  of  its  learned  Professors, 
claimed  for  the  slaves  "  equal  privileges  with  the 
whites."  Yale  College,  by  its  President,  the  eminent 
divine,  Ezra  Stiles,  became  the  head  of  the  Abolition 
Society  of  Connecticut.  And  the  University  of  Wil- 
liam and  Mary,  in  Virginia,  testified  its  sympathy  with 
this  cause  at  this  very  time,  by  conferring  upon  Gran- 
ville  Sharpe,  the  acknowledged  chief  of  British  Aboli- 
tionists, the  honorary  degree  of  Doctor  of  Laws. 

The  LITERATURE  of  the  land,  such  as  then  existed, 
agreed  with  the  Nation,  the  Church  and  the  College. 


FBEEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVEHY  SECTIONAL.    101 

Franklin,  in  the  last  literary  labor  of  his  life ;  Jeffer- 
son, in  his  Notes  on  Virginia ;  Barlow,  in  his  measured 
verse  ;  Rush,  in  a  work  which  inspired  the  praise  of 
Clarkson ;  the  ingenious  author  of  the  Algerine  Cap- 
tive—  the  earliest  American  novel,  and  though  now 
but  little  known,  one  of  the  earliest  American  books 
republished  in  London  —  were  all  moved  by  the  con- 
templation of  Slavery.  "  If  our  fellow-citizens  of  the 
Southern  States  are  deaf  to  the  pleadings  of  nature," 
the  latter  exclaims  in  his  work,  "  I  will  conjure  them, 
for  the  sake  of  consistency,  to  cease  to  deprive  their 
fellow-creatures  of  freedom,  which  their  writers,  their 
orators,  representatives  and  senators,  and  even  their 
Constitution  of  Government,  have  declared  to  be  the 
inalienable  birthright  of  man."  A  female  writer  and 
poet,  earliest  in  our  country  among  the  graceful 
throng,  Sarah*  Wgntworth  Morton,  at  the  very  period 
of  the  National  Convention  admired  by  the  polite  so- 
ciety in  which  she  lived,  poured  forth  her  sympathies 
also.  The  generous  labors  of  John  Jay  in  behalf  of 
the  crushed  African  inspired  her  muse  ;  and,  in  another 
poem,  commemorating  a  slave,  who  fell  while  vindi- 
cating his  freedom,  she  rendered  a  truthful  homage  to 
his  inalienable  rights,  in  words  which  I  now  quote  as 
part  of  the  testimony  of  the  times  : 

"  Does  not  the  voice  of  reason  cry, 

'  Claim  the  first  right  that  Nature  gave  ; 

From  the*  red  scourge  of  bondage  fly, 
Nor  deign  to  live  a  burdened  slave  ? ' ' 

Such,  sir,  at  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  and  at 
the  first  organization  of  the  National  Government,  was 
the   out-spoken,    unequivocal   heart    of    the   country. 
9* 


102     FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAI. 

Slavery  was  abhorred.  Like  the  slave  trade,  it  was 
regarded  as  transitory  ;  and,  by  many,  it  was  supposed 
that  they  would  both  disappear  together.  As  the 
oracles  grew  mute  at  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  a 
voice  was  heard,  crying  to  mariners  at  sea,  "  Great 
Pan  is  dead,"  so  at  this  time  Slavery  became  dumb, 
and  its  death  seemed  to  be  near.  Voices  of  Freedom 
filled  the  air.  The  patriot,  the  Christian,  the  scholar, 
the  writer,  the  poet,  vied  in  loyalty  to  this  cause.  All 
were  Abolitionists. 

Glance  now  at  the  earliest  Congress  under  the  Con- 
stitution. From  various  quarters  came  memorials  to 
this  body  against  Slavery.  Among  these  was  one  from 
the  Abolition  Society  of  Virginia,  wherein  Slavery  is 
pronounced  "  not  only  an  odious  degradation,  but  an 
outrageous  violation  of  one  of  the  most  essential  rights 
of  human  nature,  and  utterly  repugnant  to  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  Gospel."  Still  another,  of  a  more  impor- 
tant character,  proceeded  from  the  Abolition  Society  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  was  signed  by  Benjamin  Franklin, 
as  President.  This  venerable  man,  whose  active  life 
had  been  devoted  to  the  welfare  of  mankind  at  home 
and  abroad  —  who,  both  as  philosopher  and  statesman, 
had  arrested  the  admiration  of  the  world  —  who  had 
ravished  the  lightning  from  the  skies  and  the  sceptre 
from  the  tyrant —  who,  as  a  member  of  the  Continental 
Congress,  had  set  his  name  to  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, and,  as  a  member  of  the  National  Conven- 
tion, had  again  set  his  name  to  the  Constitution  —  in 
whom  more,  perhaps,  than  in  any  other  person,  was 
embodied  the  true  spirit  of  American  institutions,  at 
once  practical  and  humane  —  than  whom  no  one  could 
be  more  familiar  with  the  purposes  and  aspirations  of 


FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL.    103 

the  founders  —  this  veteran,  eighty-four  years  of  age, 
within  a  few  months  of  his  death,  now  appeared  by 
petition  at  the  bar  of  that  Congress,  whose  powers  he 
had  helped  to  define  and  establish.  This  was  the  last 
political  act  of  his  long  life.  Listen  to  the  prayer  of 
Franklin : 

"  Your  memoralists,  particularly  engaged  in  attending  to  the 
distresses  arising  from  Slavery,  believe  it  to  be  their  indispensa- 
ble duty  to  present  this  subject  to  your  notice.  They  have  ob- 
served with  real  satisfaction  that  many  important  and  salutary 
powers  are  vested  in  you  for  promoting  the  welfare  and  securing 
the  blessings  of  liberty  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  ;  and  as 
they  conceive  that  these  blessings  ought  rightfully  to  be  admin- 
istered, without  distinction  of  color  to  all  descriptions  of  people, 
so  they  indulge  themselves  in  the  pleasing  expectation,  that  noth- 
ing which  can  be  done  for  the  relief  of  the  unhappy  objects  of 
their  care,  will  be  either  omitted  or  delayed."  "Under  these 
impressions,  they^  earnestly  entreat  your  serious  attention  to  the 
subject  of  Slavery  ;  that  you  would  be  pleased  to  countenance  the 
restoration  of  liberty  to " 'those  unhappy  men,  who  alone,  in  this 
land  of  Freedom,  are  degraded  into  perpetual  bondage,  and 
who,  amidst  the  general  joy  of  surrounding  freemen,  are  groan- 
ing in  servile  subjection  ;  that  you  will  promote  mercy  and  jus- 
tice towards  this  distressed  race,  and  that  you  will  step  to  the 
very  verge  of  the  power  vested  in  you  for  DISCOURAGING 
every  species  of  traffic  in  the  persons  of  our  fellow-men." 

Important  words  !  in  themselves  a  key-note  of  the 
times.  From  his  grave  Franklin  seems  still  to  call 
upon  Congress  to  step  to  the  very  verge  of  the  powers 
vested  in  it  to  DISCOURAGE  SLAVERY  ;  and,  in  making 
this  prayer,  he  proclaims  the  true  national  policy  of  the 
Fathers.  Not  encouragement  but  discouragement  of 
Slavery  was  their  rule. 

Sir,  enough  has  been  said  to  show  the  sentiment 
which,  like  a  vital  air,  surrounded  the  National  Gov- 


104     FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVEKY    SECTIOXAL. 

eminent  as  it  stepped  into  being.  In  the  face  of  this 
history,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  positive  sanction,  it 
is  absurd  to  suppose  that  Slavery,  which  under  the 
Confederation  was  merely  sectional,  was  now  consti- 
tuted a  national  institution.  Our  fathers  did  not  say 
with  the  apostate  angel,  "  Evil  be  thou  my  good ! " 
In  a  different  spirit  they  cried  out  to  Slavery,  "  Get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan  !  " 

But  there  is  yet  another  link  in  the  argument.  In 
the  discussions  which  took  place  in  the  local  conven- 
tions on  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  a  sensitive 
desire  was  manifested  to  surround  all  persons  under 
the  Constitution  with  additional  safeguards.  Fears 
were  expressed,  from  the  supposed  indefiniteness  of 
some  of  the  powers  conceded  to  the  National  Govern- 
ment, and  also  from  the  absence  of  a  Bill  of  Rights. 
Massachusetts,  on  ratifying  the  Constitution,  proposed 
a  series  of  amendments,  at  the  head  of  which  was  this, 
characterized  by  Samuel  Adams,  in  the  Convention,  as 
"  A  summary  of  a  Bill  of  Rights  :  " 

"  That  it  be  explicitly  declared,  that  all  powers  not  expressly 
delegated  by  the  aforesaid  Constitution  are  reserved  to  the  sev- 
eral States,  to  be  by  them  exercised." 

Virginia,  South  Carolina,  and  North  Carolina,  with 
minorities  in  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland,  united  in 
this  proposition.  In  pursuance  of  these  recommenda- 
tions, the  first  Congress  presented  for  adoption  the 
following  article,  which,  being  ratified  by  a  proper 
number  of  States,  became  part  of  the  Constitution,  as 
the  10th  amendment: 

"  The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Con- 
stitution, nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the 
States  respectively,  or  to  the  people." 


I-BEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     105 

Stronger  words  could  not  be  employed  to  limit  the 
power  under  the  Constitution,  and  to  protect  the  people 
from  all  assumptions  of  the  National  Government,  par- 
ticularly in  derogation  of  Freedom.  Its  guardian  char- 
acter commended  it  to  the  sagacious  mind  of  Jefferson, 
who  said :  "  I  consider  the  foundation  corner-stone 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  be  laid  upon 
the  tenth  article  of  the  amendments."  And  Samuel 
Adams,  ever  watchful  for  Freedom,  said :  "  It  removes 
a  doubt  which  many  have  entertained  respecting  the 
matter,  gives  assurance  that,  if  any  law  made  by  the 
Federal  Government  shall  be  extended  beyond  the 
power  granted  by  the  Constitution,  and  inconsistent 
with  the  Constitution  of  this  State,  it  will  be  an  error, 
and  adjudged  by  the  courts  of  law  to  be  void." 

Beyond  all  question,  the  National  Government, 
ordained  by  the  Constitution,  is  not  general  or  uni- 
versal ;  but  special  and  particular.  It  is  a  Govern- 
ment of  limited  powers.  It  has  no  power  which  is 
not  delegated.  Especially  is  this  clear  with  regard  to 
an  institution  like  Slavery.  The  Constitution  contains 
no  power  to  make  a  King  or  to  support  kingly  rule. 
"With  similar  reason  it  may  be  said,  that  it  contains  no 
power  to  make  a  slave,  or  to  support  a  system  of 
Slavery.  The  absence  of  all  such  power  is  hardly  more 
clear  in  one  case  than  in  the  other.  But  if  there  be 
no  such  power,  all  national  legislation  upholding 
Slavery  must  be  unconstitutional  and  void.  The 
stream  cannot  be  higher  than  the  fountain-head. 
Nay  more,  nothing  can  come  out  of  nothing  ;  the  stream 
cannot  exist,  if  there  be  no  springs  from  which  it  is 
fed. 

At  the  risk  of  repetition,  but  for  the  sake  of  clear- 


106     FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

ness,  review  now  this  argument,  and  gather  it  together. 
Considering  that  Slavery  is  of  such  an  offensive  char- 
acter that  it  can  find  sanction  only  in  "positive  law," 
and  that  it  has  no  such  "positive"  sanction  in  the 
Constitution ;  that  the  Constitution,  according  to  its 
Preamble,  was  ordained  "  to  establish  justice  "  and 
"  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  ;  "  that,  in  the  Con- 
vention which  framed  it,  and  also  elsewhere  at  the 
time,  it  was  declared  not  to  sanction  Slavery ;  that, 
according  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the 
Address  of  the  Continental  Congress,  the  Nation  was 
dedicated  to  "  liberty  "  and  the  "  rights  of  human  na- 
ture ;  "  that,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  common 
law,  the  Constitution  must  be  interpreted  openly, 
actively,  and  perpetually,  for  Freedom ;  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  it  acts  upon 
slaves,  not  as  property,  but  as'  PERSONS  ;  that,  at  the 
first  organization  of  the  National  Government  under 
Washington,  Slavery  had  no  national  favor,  existed 
nowhere  on  the  national  territory,  beneath  the  national 
flag,  but  was  openly  condemned  by  the  Nation,  the 
Church,  the  Colleges  and  Literature  of  the  time  ;  and, 
finally,  that  according  to  an  Amendment  of  the  Con- 
stitution, the  National  Government  can  only  exercise 
powers  delegated  to  it,  among  which  there  is  none 
to  support  Slavery ;  considering  these  things,  sir,  it  is 
impossible  to  avoid  the  single  conclusion  that  Slavery 
is  in  no  respect  a  national  institution,  and  that  the 
Constitution  nowhere  upholds  property  in  man. 

But  there  is  one  other  special  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution, which  I  have  reserved  to  this  stage,  not  so 
much  from  its  superior  importance,  but  because  it  may 
fitly  stand  by  itself.  This  alone,  if  practically  applied, 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     107 

would  carry  Freedom  to  all  within  its  influence.  It  ia 
an  amendment  proposed  by  the  first  Congress,  as 
follows  : 

"  No  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty  or  property, 
without  due  process  of  law." 

Under  this  aegis  the  liberty  of  every  person  within  the 
national  jurisdiction  is  unequivocally  placed.  I  say 
every  person.  Of  this  there  can  be  no  question.  The 
word  "  person  "  in  the  Constitution  embraces  every 
human  being  within  its  sphere,  whether  Caucasian, 
Indian,  or  African,  from  the  President  to  the  slave. 
Show  me  a  person,  no  matter  what  his  condition,  or 
race,  or  color,  within  the  national  jurisdiction,  and  I 
confidently  claim  for  him  this  protection.  The  natural 
meaning  of  the  clause  is  clear;  but  a  single  fact  of  its 
history  places  it  in  the  broad  light  of  noon.  As  origi- 
nally recommended  by  North  Carolina  and  Virginia,  it 
was  restrained  to  the  freeman.  Its  language  was,  "No 
freeman  ought  to  be  deprived  of  his  life,  liberty  or 
property,  but  by  the  law  of  the  land."  In  rejecting 
this  limitation,  the  authors  of  the  amendment  revealed 
their  purpose,  that  no  person,  under  the  National  Gov- 
ernment, of  whatever  character,  shall  be  deprived  of 
liberty  without  due  process  of  law ;  that  is,  without 
due  presentment,  indictment  or  other  judicial  -pro- 
ceedings. Here  by  this  Amendment  is.  an  express 
guaranty  of  Personal  Liberty,  and  an  express  prohi- 
bition against  its  invasion  anywhere,  at  least  within 
the  national  jurisdiction. 

Sir,  apply  these  principles,  and  Slavery  will  again 
be  as  when  Washington  took  his  first  oath  as  President. 
The  Union  Flag  of  the  Republic  will  become  onca 


108     FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

more  the  flag  of  Freedom,  and  at  all  points  within  the 
national  jurisdiction  will  refuse  to  cover  a  slave.  Be- 
neath its  beneficent  folds,  wherever  it  is  carried,  on 
land  or  sea,  Slavery  will  disappear,  like  darkness  under 
the  arrows  of  the  ascending  sun  —  like  the  Spirit  of 
Evil  before  the  Angel  of  the  Lord. 

In  all  national  territories  Slavery  will  be  impossible. 

On  the  high  seas,  under  the  national  flag,  Slavery 
will  be  impossible. 

In  the  District  of  Columbia  Slavery  will  instantly 
cease. 

Inspired  by  these  principles,  Congress  can  give  no 
sanction  to  Slavery  by  the  admission  of  new  Slave 
States. 

Nowhere  under  the  Constitution,  can  the  Nation, 
by  legislation  or  otherwise,  support  Slavery,  hunt 
slaves,  or  hold  property  in  man. 

Such,  sir,  are  my  sincere  convictions.  According 
to  the  Constitution,  as  I  understand  it,  in  the  light  of 
the  Past  and  of  its  true  principles,  there  is  no  other 
conclusion  which  is  rational  or  tenable  ;  which  does 
not  defy  the  authoritative  rules  of  interpretation  ; 
which  does  not  falsify  indisputable  facts  of  history ; 
which  does  not  affront  the  public  opinion  in  which  it 
had  its  birth  ;  and  which  does  not  dishonor  the  mem- 
ory of  the  Fathers.  And  yet  these  convictions  are 
now  placed  under  formal  ban  by  politicians  of  the 
hour.  The  generous  sentiments  which  filled  the  early 
patriots,  and  which  impressed  upon  the  Government 
they  founded,  as  upon  the  coin  they  circulated,  the 
image  and  superscription  of  LIBERTY,  have  lost  their 
power.  The  slave  masters,  few  in  number,  amounting 
to  not  more  than  thiee  hundred  and  fifty  thousand, 


FKEEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAYEBY  SECTIONAL.    109 

according  to  the  recent  census,  have  succeeded  in  dic- 
tating the  policy  of  the  National  Government,  and 
have  written  SLAYEBY  on  its  front.  And  now  an 
arrogant  and  unrelenting  ostracism  is  applied,  not  only 
to  all  who  express  themselves  against  Slavery,  but  to 
every  man  who  is  unwilling  to  be  the  menial  of  Slavery. 
A  novel  test  for  office  is  introduced,  which  would  have 
excluded  all  the  Fathers  of  the  Republic  —  even  Wash- 
ington, Jefferson  and  Franklin  !  Yes,  sir.  Startling 
it  may  be,  but  indisputable.  Could  these  revered 
demigods  of  history  once  again  descend  upon  earth 
and  mingle  in  our  affairs,  not  one  of  them  could  re- 
ceive a  nomination  from  the  National  Convention  of 
either  of  the  two  old  political  parties  !  Out  of  the 
convictions  of  their  hearts  and  the  utterances  of  their 
lips  against  Slavery  they  would  be  condemned. 

This  single  fact  reveals  the  extent  to  which  the 
National  Government  has  departed  from  its  true  course 
and  its  great  examples.  For  myself,  I  know  no  better 
aim  under  the  Constitution,  than  to  bring  the  Govern- 
ment back  to  the  precise  position  on  this  question 
which  it  occupied  on  the  auspicious  morning  of  its 
first  organization  by  Washington ; 


•  mine  retrorsum 


Vela  dare,  atque  iterare  cursua 
Kelictos  ;  * 

that  the  sentiments  of  the  Fathers  may  again  prevail 
with  our  rulers,  and  that  the  National  Flag  may  no- 
where shelter  Slavery. 

To  such  as  count  this   aspiration  unreasonable,  let 


*  Horace,  Carmina,  Lib.  I.  34. 
10 


110    FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL. 

me  commend  a  renowned  and  life-giving  precedent  of 
English  history.  As  early  as  the  days  of  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, a  courtier  had  boasted  that  the  air  of  England 
was  too  pure  for  a  slave  to  breathe,  and  the  common 
law  was  said  to  forbid  Slavery.  And  yet  in  the  face 
of  this  vaunt,  kindred  to  that  of  our  Fathers,  and  so 
truly  honorable,  slaves  were  introduced  from  the  West 
Indies.  The  custom  of  slavery  gradually  prevailed. 
Its  positive  legality  was  affirmed,  in  professional 
opinions,  by  two  eminent  lawyers,  Talbot  and  Yorke, 
each  afterwards  Lord  Chancellor.  It  Avas  also  affirmed 
on  the  bench  by  the  latter  as  Lord  Hardwicke.  Eng- 
land was  already  a  Slave  State.  The  following  adver- 
tisement, copied  from  a  London  newspaper,  the  Public 
Advertiser,  of  Nov.  22d,  1769,  shows  that  the  journals 
there  were  disfigured  as  some  of  ours,  even  in  the 
District  of  Columbia : 

"  To  be  sold,  a  black  girl,  the  property  of  J.  B.,  eleven  years 
of  age,  who  is  extremely  handy,  works  at  her  needle  tolerably, 
and  speaks  English  perfectly  well  ;  is  of  an  excellent  temper  and 
willing  disposition.  Enquire  of  her  Owner  at  the  Angel  Inn, 
behind  St.  Clement's  Church,  in  the  Strand." 

At  last,  only  three  years  after  this  advertisement,  in 
1772,  the  single  question  of  the  legality  of  Slavery 
was  presented  to  Lord  Mansfield,  on  a  writ  of  Habeas 
Corpus.  A  poor  negro,  named  Somersett,  brought  to 
England  as  a  slave,  became  ill,  and  with  an  inhumanity 
disgraceful  even  to  Slavery,  was  turned  adrift  upon  the 
world.  Through  the  charity  of  an  estimable  man,  the 
eminent  Abolitionist,  Granville  Sharpe,  he  was  re- 
stored to  health,  when  his  unfeeling  and  avaricious 
master  again  claimed  him  as  a  bondman.  The  claim 


FHEEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL.    Ill 

was  repelled.  After  an  elaborate  and  protracted  dis- 
cussion in  Westminster  Hall,  marked  by  rare  learning 
and  ability,  Lord  Mansfield,  with  discreditable  reluc- 
tance, sullying  his  great  judicial  name,  but  in  trembling 
obedience  to  the  genius  of  the  British  Constitution, 
pronounced  a  decree  which  made  the  early  boast  a 
practical  verity,  and  rendered  Slavery  forever  impos- 
sible in  England.  More  than  fifteen  thousand  persons, 
at  that  time  held  as  slaves  in  English  air  —  four  times 
as  many  as  are  now  found  in  this  national  metropolis 
—  stepped  forth  in  the  happiness  and  dignity  of  free- 
men. 

With  this  guiding  example  I  cannot  despair.  The 
time  will  yet  come  when  the  boast  of  our  Fathers  will 
be  made  a  practical  verity  also,  and  Court  or  Con- 
gress, in  the  spirit  of  this  British  judgment,  will  proudly 
declare  that  nowhere  under  the  Constitution  can  man 
hold  property  in  man.  For  the  Republic  such  a  decree 
will  be  the  way  of  peace  and  safety.  As  Slavery  is 
banished  from  the  national  jurisdiction,  it  will  cease 
to  vex  our  national  politics.  It  may  linger  in  the 
States  as  a  local  institution ;  but  it  will  no  longer 
engender  national  animosities,  when  it  no  longer  de- 
mands national  support. 

II.  From  this  general  review  of  the  relations  of  the 
National  Government  to  Slavery,  I  pass  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  TRUE  NATURE  OF  THE  PROVISION 
FOR  THE  SURRENDER  OF  FUGITIVES  FROM  SERVICE, 

embracing  an  examination  of  this  provision  in  the 
Constitution,  and  especially  of  the  recent  act  of  Con- 
gress in  pursuance  thereof.  And  here,  as  I  begin  this 
discussion,  let  me  bespeak  anew  your  candor.  Not  in 


112   FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLA  VERT  SECTIONAL. 

prejudice,  but  in  the  light  of  history  and  of  reason,  let 
us  consider  this  subject.  The  way  will  then  be  easy 
and  the  conclusion  certain. 

Much  error  arises  from  the  exaggerated  importance 
now  attached  to  this  provision,  and  from  the  assump- 
tions with  regard  to  its  origin  and  primitive  character 
It  is  often  asserted  that  it  was  suggested  by  some 
special  difficulty,  which  had  become  practically  and 
extensively  felt,  anterior  to  the  Constitution.  But 
this  is  one  of  the  myths  or  fables  with  which  the  sup- 
porters of  Slavery  have  surrounded  their  false  god.  In 
the  Articles  of  Confederation,  while  provision  is  made 
for  the  surrender  of  fugitive  criminals,  nothing  is  said 
of  fugitive  slaves  or  servants  ;  and  there  is  no  evidence 
in  any  quarter,  until  after  the  National  Convention,  of 
any  hardship  or  solicitude  on  this  account.  No  pre- 
vious voice  was  heard  to  express  desire  for  any  pro- 
vision on  the  subject.  The  story  to  the  contrary  is  a 
modern  fiction. 

I  put  aside  as  equally  fabulous  the  common  saying 
that  this  provision  was  one  of  the  original  compromises 
of  the  Constitution,  and  an  essential  condition  of  Union. 
Though  sanctioned  by  eminent  judicial  opinions,  it  will 
be  found  that  this  statement  has  been  hastily  made, 
without  any  support  in  the  records  of  the  Convention, 
the  only  authentic  evidence  of  the  compromises  ;  nor 
will  it  be  easy  to  find  any  authority  for  it  in  any 
contemporary  document,  speech,  published  letter  or 
pamphlet  of  any  kind.  It  is  true  that  there  were 
compromises  at  the  formation  of  the  Constitution, 
which  were  the  subject  of  anxious  debate;  but  this 
was  not  of  them. 

There  was  a  compromise   between  the   small  and 


FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     113 

large  States,  by  which  equality  was  secured  to  all  the 
States  in  the  Senate.  There  was  another  compromise 
finally  carried,  under  threats  from  the  South,  on  the 
motion  of  a  New  England  member,  by  which  the  Slave 
States  were  allowed  Representatives  according  to  the 
whole  number  of  free  persons,  and  "  three-fifths  of  all 
other  persons,"  thus  securing  political  power  on  account 
of  their  slaves,  in  consideration  that  direct  taxes  should 
be  apportioned  in  the  same  way.  Direct  taxes  have 
been  imposed  at  only  four  brief  intervals.  The  polit- 
ical power  has  been  constant,  and,  at  this  moment, 
sends  twenty-one  members  to  the  other  House. 

There  was  a  third  compromise,  which  cannot  be 
mentioned  without  shame.  It  was  that  hateful  bargain 
by  which  Congress  was  restrained  until  1808  from  the 
prohibition  of  the  foreign  slave  trade,  thus  securing, 
down  to  that  period,  toleration  for  crime.  This  was 
pertinaciously  pressed  by  the  South,  even  to  the  extent 
of  an  absolute  restraint  on  Congress.  John  Rutledge 
said  :  "  If  the  Convention  thinks  North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia,  will  ever  agree  to  this  plan  [the 
Federal  Constitution]  unless  their  right  to  import  slaves 
be  untouched,  the  expectation  is  vain.  The  people  of 
those  States  will  never  be  such  fools  as  to  give  up  so 
important  an  interest."  Charles  Pinckney  said :  "  South 
Carolina  can  never  receive  the  plan  [of  the  Constitution] 
if  it  prohibits  the  slave  trade."  Charles  Cotesworth 
Pinckney  "  thought  himself  bound  to  declare  candidly 
that  he  did  not  think  South  Carolina  would  stop  her 
importation  of  slaves  in  any  short  time."  The  effront- 
ery of  the  slave-masters  was  matched  by  the  sordidness 
of  the  Eastern  members,  who  yielded  again.  Luther 
Martin,  the  eminent  member  of  the  Convention,  in  his 
10* 


114     FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

contemporary  address  to  the  Legislature  of  Maryland, 
lias  described  the  compromise.  "  I  found,"  he  says, 
"  that  the  Eastern  members,  notwithstanding  their 
aversion  to  slavery,  were  very  willing  to  indulge  the 
Southern  States,  at  least  with  a  temporary  liberty  to 
prosecute  the  slave  trade,  provided  the  Southern  States 
would  in  their  turn  gratify  them,  by  laying  no  restric- 
tion on  navigation  acts."  The  bargain  was  struck,  and 
at  this  price  the  Southern  States  gained  tha  detestable 
indulgence,  At  a  subsequent  day,  Congress  branded 
the  slave  trade  as  piracy,  and  thus,  by  solemn  legisla- 
tive act,  adjudged  this  compromise  to  be  felonious  and 
wicked. 

Such  are  the  three  chief  original  compromises  of  the 
Constitution  and  essential  conditions  of  Union.  The 
case  of  fugitives  from  service  is  not  of  these.  During 
the  Convention,  it  was  not  in  any  way  associated  with 
these.  Nor  is  there  any  evidence,  from  the  records  of 
this  body,  that  the  provision  on  this  subject  was  re- 
garded with  any  peculiar  interest.  As  its  absence  from 
the  Articles  of  Confederation  had  not  been  the  occasion 
of  solicitude  or  desire,  anterior  to  the  National  Con- 
vention, so  it  did  not  enter  into  any  of  the  original 
plans  of  the  Constitution.  It  was  introduced  tardily, 
at  a  late  period  of  the  Convention,  and  with  very  little 
and  most  casual  discussion  adopted.  A  few  facts  will 
show  how  utterly  unfounded  are  the  recent  assump- 
tions. 

The  National  Convention  was  convoked  to  meet  at 
Philadelphia  on  the  second  Monday  in  May,  1787. 
Several  members  appeared  at  this  time  ;  but  a  majority 
of  the  States  not  being  represented,  those  present  ad- 
journed from  day  to  day  until  the  25th,  when  the 


FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL.    115 

Convention  was  organized  by  the  choice  of  George 
Washington,  as  President.  On  the  28th,  a  few  brief 
rules  and  orders  were  adopted.  On  the  next  day  they 
commenced  their  great  work. 

On  the  same  day,  Edmund  Randolph,  of  slavehold- 
ing  Virginia,  laid  before  the  Convention  a  series  of 
sixteen  resolutions,  containing  his  plan  for  the  estab- 
tishment  of  a  New  National  Government.  Here  was 
no  allusion  to  fugitive  slaves. 

On  the  same  day,  Charles  Pinckney,  of  slaveholding 
South  Carolina,  laid  before  the  Convention  what  is 
called  "  A  draft  of  a  Federal  Government,  to  be  agreed 
upon  between  the  free  and  independent  States  of 
America,"  an  elaborate  paper,  marked  by  considerable 
minuteness  of  detail.  Here  are  provisions,  borrowed 
from  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  securing  to  citizens 
of  each  State  equal  privileges  in  the  several  States; 
giving  faith  to  the  public  records  of  the  States ;  and 
ordaining  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  justice.  But 
this  draft,  though  from  the  naming  guardian  of  the  slave 
interest,  contained  no  allusion  to  fugitive  slaves. 

In  the  course  of  the  Convention  other  plans  were 
brought  forward;  on  the  15th  June  a  series  of  eleven 
propositions  by  Mr.  Patterson,  of  New  Jersey,  "  so  as 
to  render  the  Federal  Constitution  adequate  to  the 
exigencies  of  Government,  and  the  preservation  of  the 
Union ;  "  on  the  18th  June,  eleven  propositions  by 
Mr.  Hamilton  of  New  York,  "  containing  his  ideas 
of  a  suitable  plan  of  Government  for  the  United 
States  ;  "  and  on  the  19th  June,  Mr.  Randolph's  reso- 
lutions, originally  offered  on  the  29th  May,  "  as  altered, 
amended,  and  agreed  to  in  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House."  On  the  26th,  twenty-three  resolutions,  already 


116      FKEEDOM    NATIONAL  J    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

adopted  on  different  days  in  the  Convention,  were  re- 
ferred to  a  "  Committee  of  Detail,"  to  be  reduced  to 
the  form  of  a  Constitution.  On  the  6th  August  this 
Committee  reported  the  finished  draft  of  a  Constitution. 
And  yet  in  all  these  resolutions,  plans  and  drafts,  seven 
in  number,  proceeding  from  eminent  members  and  from 
able  Committees,  no  allusion  was  made  to  fugitive  slaves. 
For  three  months  the  Convention  was  in  session,  and 
not  a  word  uttered  on  this  subject. 

At  last,  on  the  28th  August,  as  the  Convention  was 
drawing  to  a  close,  on  the  consideration  of  the  article 
providing  for  the  privileges  of  citizens  in  different 
States,  we  meet  the  first  reference  to  this  matter,  in 
words  worthy  of  note :  "  Gen.  [Charles  Cotesworth] 
Pinckney  was  not  satisfied  with  it.  He  SEEMED  to 
wish  some  provision  should  be  included  in  favor  of 
property  in  slaves."  But  he  made  no  proposition. 
Unwilling  to  shock  the  Convention,  and  uncertain  in 
his  own  mind,  he  only  seemed  to  wish  such  a  provision. 
In  this  vague  expression  of  a  vague  desire,  this  idea 
first  appeared.  In  this  modest,  hesitating  phrase  is 
the  germ  of  the  audacious,  unhesitating  Slave  Act. 
Here  is  the  little  vapor,  which  has  since  swollen,  as  in 
the  Arabian  tale,  to  the  power  and  dimensions  of  a 
giant.  The  next  article  under  discussion  provided  for 
the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  justice.  Mr.  Butler 
and  Mr.  Charles  Pinckney,  both  from  South  Carolina, 
now  moved  openly  to  require  "  fugitive  slaves  and 
servants  to  be  delivered  up  like  criminals."  Here  was 
no  disguise.  With  Hamlet  it  was  now  said  in  spirit : 

"  Seems,  madam,  nay,  it  is  ;  I  know  not  seems." 
But  the  very  boldness  of  the  effort  drew  attention  and 
opposition.     Mr.  Wilson,  of  Pennsylvania,  at  once  ob- 


FBEEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAYEBY  SECTIONAL.    117 

jected  :  "  This  would  oblige  the  Executive  of  the  State 
to  do  it  at  the  public  expense/'  Mr.  Sherman,  of 
Connecticut,  "  saw  no  more  propriety  in  the  public 
seizing  and  surrendering  a  slave  or  servant,  than  a 
horse."  Under  the  pressure  of  these  objections,  the 
offensive  proposition  was  quietly  withdrawn  —  never 
more  to  be  renewed.  The  article  for  the  surrender  of 
criminals  was  then  adopted.  On  the  next  day,  29th 
August,  profiting  by  the  suggestions  already  made,  Mr. 
Butler  moved  a  proposition  —  substantially  like  that 
now  found  in  the  Constitution  —  not  for  the  surrender 
of  "  fugitive  slaves,"  as  originally  proposed,  but  simply 
of  "persons  held  to  service,"  which,  without  debate  or 
opposition  of  any  kind,  was  unanimously  adopted. 

Here  palpably  was  no  labor  of  compromise  —  no 
adjustment  of  conflicting  interests;  nor  even  any  ex- 
pression of  solicitude.  The  clause  finally  adopted  was 
vague  and  faint  as  the  original  suggestion.  In  its 
natural  import  it  is  not  applicable  to  slaves.  If  sup- 
posed by  some  to  be  so  applicable,  it  is  clear  that  it  was 
supposed  by  others  to  be  inapplicable  to  them.  It  is 
now  insisted  that  the  term  "  persons  held  to  service  " 
is  an  equivalent  or  synonym  for  "  slaves."  This  in- 
terpretation is  rebuked  by  an  incident,  to  which  refer- 
ence has  been  already  made,  but  which  will  bear 
repetition.  On  the  6th  September  —  a  little  more  than 
one  brief  week  after  the  clause  had  been  adopted,  and 
when,  if  it  was  deemed  to  be  of  any  significance,  it  could 
not  have  been  forgotten  —  the  very  word  "service" 
came  under  debate,  and  received  a  fixed  meaning.  It 
was  unanimously  adopted  as  a  substitute  for  "  servi- 
tude "  in  another  part  of  the  Constitution,  for  the 
reason  that  it  "  expressed  the  obligation  of  free  per- 


118      FREEDOM    XATIOXAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

sons,"  while  the  other  expressed  "  the  condition  of 
Slaves."  *  In  the  face  of  this  authentic  evidence  of  the 
sentiments  of  the  Convention,  reported  by  Mr.  Madison, 
it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  term  "  persons  held  to 
service,"  can  be  deemed  to  express  anything  beyond 
"  the  obligations  of  free  persons."  Thus  in  the  light 
of  calm  inquiry,  does  this  exaggerated  clause  lose  its 
importance. 

The  provision,  which  showed  itself  thus  tardily,  and 
was  so  slightly  regarded  in  the  National  Convention, 
was  neglected  in  much  of  the  contemporaneous  discus- 
sions before  the  people.  In  the  Conventions  of  South 
Carolina,  North  Carolina  and  Virginia,  it  was  com- 
mended as  securing  important  rights,  though  on  this 
point  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion.  In  the  Vir- 
ginia Convention,  an  eminent  character,  Mr.  George 
Mason,  with  others,  expressly  declared  that  there  was 
"  no  security  of  property  coming  within  this  section." 
In  the  other  Conventions  it  was  disregarded.  Massa- 
chusetts, while  exhibiting  peculiar  sensitiveness  at  any 
responsibility  for  Slavery,  seemed  to  view  it  with  un- 
concern. One  of  her  leading  statesmen,  Gen.  Heath, 
in  the  debates  of  the  State  Convention,  strenuously 
asserted  that,  in  ratifying  the  Constitution,  the  people 
of  Massachusetts  "  would  do  nothing  to  hold  the  blacks 
in  Slavery."  The  Federalist,  (No.  42,)  in  its  classifi- 
cation of  the  powers  of  Congress,  describes  and  groups 
a  large  number  as  those  "  which  provide  for  the  har- 
mony and  proper  intercourse  among  the  States,"  and 
therein  speaks  of  the  power  over  public  records,  stand- 
ing next  in  the  Constitution  to  the  provision  on  fugi- 

*  Madison's  Papers,  Vol.  HI.  1569. 


FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL.    119 

tives  from  service ;  but  it  fails  to  recognize  the  latter 
among  the  means  of  promoting  that  "  harmony  and 
proper  intercourse  ;  "  nor  does  it  anywhere  allude  to 
the  provision. 

The  indifference  which  had  thus  far  attended  this 
subject,  still  continued.  The  earliest  Act  of  Congress, 
passed  in  1793,  drew  little  attention.  It  was  not  origi- 
nally suggested  by  any  difficulty  or  anxiety,  touching 
fugitives  from  service,  nor  is  there  any  record  of  the 
times,  in  debate  or  otherwise,  showing  that  any  spe- 
cial importance  was  attached  to  its  provisions  in  this 
regard.  The  attention  of  Congress  had  been  directed 
to  fugitives  from  justice,  and,  with  little  deliberation, 
it  undertook,  in  the  same  bill,  to  provide  for  both 
classes  of  cases.  In  this  accidental  manner  was  legis- 
lation on  this  subject  first  attempted. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  fugitives  were  often  seized 
under  this  Act.  From  a  competent  inquirer  we  learn 
that  twenty-six  years  elapsed  before  a  single  slave  was 
surrendered  under  it  in  any  Free  State.  It  is  certain 
that,  in  a  case  at  Boston,  towards  the  close  of  the  last 
century,  illustrated  by  Josiah  Quincy  as  counsel,  the 
crowd  about  the  magistrate,  at  the  examination,  quietly 
and  spontaneously  opened  a  way  for  the  fugitive,  and 
thus  the  Act  failed  to  be  executed.  It  is  also  certain 
that,  in  Vermont,  at  the  beginning  of  the  century,  a 
Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State,  on  applica- 
tion for  the  surrender  of  an  alleged  slave,  accompanied 
by  documentary  evidence,  gloriously  refused  compli- 
ance unless  the  master  could  show  a  Bill  of  Sale  from 
the  Almighty.  But  even  these  cases  passed  without 
public  comment. 

In  1801,  the  subject  was  introduced  in  the  House 


120    FREEDOM;  NATIONAL  ;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL. 

of  Representatives,  by  an  effort  for  another  Act,  which, 
on  consideration,  was  rejected.  At  a  later  day,  in 
1817-18,  though  still  disregarded  by  the  country,  it 
seemed  to  excite  a  short-lived  interest  in  Congress.  A 
bill  to  provide  more  effectually  "  for  reclaiming  ser- 
vants and  slaves,  escaping  from  one  State  into  another," 
was  introduced  into  the  House  of  Representatives  by 
Mr.  Pindall,  of  Virginia,  was  considered  for  several 
days  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  amended  and  passed 
by  this  body.  In  the  Senate,  after  much  attention  and 
warm  debate,  it  was  also  passed  with  amendments. 
But  on  its  return  to  the  House  for  the  adoption  of  the 
amendments,  it  was  dropped.  This  effort,  which,  in 
the  discussions  of  this  subject,  has  thus  far  been  un- 
noticed, is  chiefly  remarkable  as  the  earliest  recorded 
evidence  of  the  unwarrantable  assertion,  now  so  com- 
mon, that  this  provision  was  originally  of  vital  import- 
ance to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country. 

At  last,  in  1850,  we  have  another  Act,  passed  by 
both  Houses  of  Congress,  and  approved  by  the  Presi- 
dent, familiarly  known  as  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill.  As 
I  read  this  statute,  I  am  filled  with  painful  emotions. 
The  masterly  subtlety  with  which  it  is  drawn,  might 
challenge  admiration,  if  exerted  for  a  benevolent  pur- 
pose ;  but  in  an  age  of  sensibility  and  refinement,  a 
machine  of  torture,  however  skilful  and  apt,  cannot  bo 
regarded  without  horror.  Sir,  in  the  name  of  the 
Constitution  which  it  violates  ;  of  my  country  which 
it  dishonors  ;  of  Humanity  which  it  degrades  ;  of  Chris- 
tianity which  it  offends  ;  I  arraign  this  enactment,  and 
now  hold  it  up  to  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  and  the 
world.  Again,  I  shrink  from  no  responsibility.  I 
may  seem  to  stand  alone ;  but  all  the  patriots  and  mar- 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     121 

tyrs  of  history,  all  the  Fathers  of  the  Republic,  are 
with  me.  Sir,  there  is  no  attribute  of  God  which  does 
not  unite  against  this  Act. 

But  I  am  to  regard  it  now  chiefly  as  an  infringe- 
ment of  the  Constitution.  And  here  its  outrages,  fla- 
grant as  manifold,  assume  the  deepest  dye  and  broadest 
character  only  when  we  consider  that  by  its  language 
it  is  not  restrained  to  any  special  race  or  class,  to  the 
African  or  to  the  person  with  African  blood  ;  but  that 
any  inhabitant  of  the  United  States,  of  whatever  com- 
plexion or  condition,  may  be  its  victim.  Without 
discrimination  of  color  even,  and  in  violation  of  every 
presumption  of  freedom,  the  Act  surrenders  all,  who 
may  be  claimed  as  "  owing  service  or  labor "  to  the 
same  tyrannical  proceedings.  If  there  be  any,  whose 
sympathies  are  not  moved  for  the  slave,  who  do  not 
cherish  the  rights  of  the  humble  African,  struggling 
for  divine  Freedom,  as  warmly  as  the  rights  of  the 
white  man,  let  him  consider  well  that  the  rights  of  all 
are  equally  assailed.  "  Nephew,"  said  Algernon  Sid- 
ney in  prison,  on  the  night  before  his  execution,  "  I 
value  not  my  own  life  a  chip ;  but  what  concerns  me 
is,  that  the  law  which  takes  away  my  life  may  hang 
everyone  of  you,  whenever  it  is  thought  convenient." 

Though  thus  comprehensive  in  its  provisions  and 
applicable  to  all,  there  is  no  safeguard  of  Human  Free- 
dom which  the  monster  Act  does  not  set  at  naught. 

It  commits  this  great  question  —  than  which  none 
is  more  sacred  in  the  law  —  not  to  a  solemn  trial ;  but 
to  summary  proceedings. 

It  commits  this  question  —  not  to  one  of  the  high 
tribunals  of  the  land  —  but  to  the  unaided  judgment 
of  a  single  petty  magistrate. 
11 


122    FEEEDOM:  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL. 

It  commits  this  question,  to  a  magistrate,  appointed 
not  by  the  President  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate 
hut  by  the  Court ;  holding  his  office,  not  during  goo6 
behavior,  but  merely  during  the  will  of  the  Court ;  and 
receiving,  not  a  regular  salary,  but  fees  according  to 
each  individual  case. 

It  authorizes  judgment  on  ex  parte  evidence,  by  affi- 
davits, without  the  sanction  of  cross-examination. 

It  denies  the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  ever  known  as 
the  Palladium  of  the  citizen. 

Contrary  to  the  declared  purposes  of  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution,  it  sends  the  fugitive  back  "  at  the 
public  expense." 

Adding  meanness  to  the  violation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, it  bribes  the  Commissioner  by  a  double  stipend  to 
pronounce  against  Freedom.  If  he  dooms  a  man  to 
Slavery,  the  reward  is  ten  dollars ;  but,  saving  him  to 
Freedom,  his  dole  is  five  dollars. 

The  Constitution  expressly  secures  the  "  free  exer- 
cise of  religion  ;  "  but  this  Act  visits  with  unrelenting 
penalties  the  faithful  men  and  women,  who  may  render 
to  the  fugitive  that  countenance,  succor  and  shelter, 
which  in  their  conscience  "  religion  "  seems  to  require. 

As  it  is  for  the  public  weal  that  there  should  be  an 
end  of  suits,  so  by  the  consent  of  civilized  nations, 
these  must  be  instituted  within  fixed  limitations  of 
time ;  but  this  Act,  exalting  Slavery  above  even  this 
practical  principle  of  universal  justice,  ordains  proceed- 
ings against  Freedom  without  any  reference  to  the 
lapse  of  time. 

Glancing  only  at  these  points,  and  not  stopping  for 
argument,  vindication,  or  illustration,  I  come  at  once 
upon  the  two  chief  radical  objections  to  this  Act,  ideu- 


NATIONAL;  SLAVEKY  SECTIONAL.  123 

tical  in  principle  with  those  brought  by  our  fathers 
against  the  British  Stamp  Act ;  first,  that  it  is  an  usur- 
pation by  Congress  of  powers  not  granted  by  the  Con- 
stitution, and  an  infraction  of  rights  secured  to  the 
States ;  and,  secondly,  that  it  takes  away  Trial  by  Jury 
in  a  question  of  Personal  Liberty  and  a  suit  at  common 
law.  Either  of  these  objections,  if  sustained,  strikes 
at  the  very  root  of  the  Act.  That  it  is  obnoxious  to 
both,  seems  beyond  doubt. 

But  here,  at  this  stage,  I  encounter  the  difficulty, 
that  these  objections  have  been  already  foreclosed  by 
the  legislation  of  Congress  and  by  the  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court;  that  as  early  as  1793,  Congress  as- 
sumed power  over  this  subject  by  an  Act,  which  failed 
to  secure  Trial  by  Jury,  and  that  the  validity  of  this 
Act,  under  the  Constitution,  has  been  affirmed  by  the 
Supreme  Court.  On  examination  this  difficulty  will 
disappear. 

The  Act  of  1793  proceeded  from  a  Congress  that 
had  already  recognized  the  United  States  Bank,  char- 
tered by  a  previous  Congress,  which,  though  sanctioned 
by  the  Supreme  Court,  has  been  since  in  high  quarters 
pronounced  unconstitutional.  If  it  erred  as  to  the 
Bank,  it  may  have  erred  also  as  to  fugitives  from  ser- 
vice. But  the  very  Act  contains  a  capital  error  on  this 
very  subject,  so  declared  by  the  Supreme  Court,  in 
pretending  to  vest  a  portion  of  the  judicial  power  of 
the  Nation  in  State  officers.  This  error  takes  from 
the  Act  all  authority  as  an  interpretation  of  the  Con- 
stitution. I  dismiss  it. 

The  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  entitled  to 
great  consideration,  and  will  not  be  mentioned  by  me 


124   FREEDOM;  NATIONAL  ;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL. 

except  with  respect.  Among  the  memories  of  my 
youth  are  happy  days  in  which  I  sat  at  the  feet  of  this 
tribunal,  while  MARSHALL  presided,  with  STORY  by 
his  side.  The  pressure  now  proceeds  from  the  case  of 
Prigg  v.  Pennsylvania,  (16  Peters,  539,)  wherein  the 
power  of  Congress  over  this  matter  is  asserted.  With- 
out going  into  any  minute  criticism  of  this  judgment, 
or  considering  the  extent  to  which  it  is  extra-judicial, 
and  therefore  of  no  binding  force,  all  which  has  been 
already  done  at  the  bar  in  one  State,  and  by  an  able 
court  in  another  ;  but  conceding  to  it  a  certain  degree 
of  weight  as  a  rule  to  the  judiciary  on  this  particular 
point,  still  it  does  not  touch  the  grave  question  arising 
from  the  denial  of  Trial  by  Jury.  This  judgment  was 
pronounced  by  Mr.  Justice  Story.  From  the  interest- 
ing biography  of  this  great  jurist,  recently  published 
by  his  son,  we  learn  that  the  question  of  Trial  by  Jury 
was  not  considered  as  before  the  Court;  so  that,  in 
the  estimation  of  the  judge  himself,  it  was  still  an 
open  question.  Here  are  the  words : 

"  One  prevailing  opinion,  which  has  created  great  prejudice 
against  this  judgment,  is,  that  it  denies  the  right  of  a  person 
claimed  as  a  fugitive  from  service  or  labor  to  a  trial  by  jury. 
This  mistake  arises  from  supposing  the  case  to  involve  the 
general  question  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  Act  of  1793. 
But  in  fact  no  such  question  was  in  the  case  ;  and  the  argument 
that  the  Act  of  1793  was  unconstitutional,  because  it  did  not 
provide  for  a  trial  by  jury  according  to  the  requisitions  of  the 
sixth  article  in  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  having  been 
suggested  to  my  father  on  his  return  from  Washington,  he  replied 
that  this  question  was  not  argued  by  counsel  nor  considered  by 
the  Court,  and  that  he  should  still  consider  it  an  open  one." 

But  whatever  may  be  the  influence  of  this  judgment 
as  a  rule  to  the  judiciary,  it  cannot  arrest  our  duty  as 


FKEEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVEHV  SECTIONAL.    125 

legislators.  And  here  I  adopt  with  entire  assent  the 
language  of  President  Jackson,  in  his  memorable  Veto, 
in  1832,  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States.  To  his 
course  was  opposed  the  authority  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  this  is  his  reply : 

"  If  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  covers  the  whole  ground 
of  this  Act,  it  ought  not  to  control  the  coordinate  authorities  of 
this  Government.  The  Congress,  the  Executive  and  the  Court, 
must  each  for  itself  be  guided  by  its  own  opinion  of  the  Consti- 
tution. Each  public  officer,  who  takes  an  oath  to  support  the 
Constitution,  swears  that  he  will  support  it  as  he  understands  it, 
and  not  as  it  is  understood  by  others.  It  is  as  much  the  duty  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  of  the  Sena'te,  and  of  the  President, 
to  decide  upon  the  constitutionality  of  any  bill  or  resolution, 
which  may  be  presented  to  them  for  passage  or  approval,  as  it  is 
of  the  Supreme  Judges  when  it  may  be  brought  before  them  for 
judicial  decision.  The  authority  of  the  Supreme  Court  must  not, 
therefore,  be  permitted  to  control  the  Congress  or  the  Executive, 
when  acting  in  their  legislative  capacities,  but  to  have  only  such 
influence  as  the  force  of  their  reasoning  may  deserve." 

With  these  authoritative  words  of  Andrew  Jackson  I 
dismiss  this  topic.  The  early  legislation  of  Congress, 
and  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  cannot  stand 
in  our  way.  I  advance  to  the  argument. 

(1.)  Now,  first,  of  the  power  of  Congress  over  this 
subject. 

The  Constitution  contains  powers  granted  to  Con- 
gress, compacts  between  the  States,  and  prohibitions 
addressed  to  the  Nation  and  to  the  States.  A  com- 
pact or  prohibition  may  be  accompanied  by  a  power ; 
but  not  necessarily,  for  it  is  essentially  distinct  in  its 
nature.  And  here  the  single  question  arises,  Whether 
the  Constitution,  by  grant,  general  or  special,  confers 
11* 


126    FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL. 

upon  Congress  any  power  to  legislate  on  the  subject 
of  fugitives  from  service. 

The  whole  legislative  power  of  Congress  is  derived 
from  two  sources;  first,  from  the  general  grant  of 
power,  attached  to  the  long  catalogue  of  powers  "  to 
make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for 
the  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers  and 
all  other  powers  vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  department 
or  officer  thereof;  "  and  secondly,  from  special  grants 
in  other  parts  of  the  Constitution.  As  the  provision 
in  question  does  not  appear  in  the  catalogue  of  pow- 
ers, and  does  not  purport  to  vest  any  power  in  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  depart- 
ment or  officer  thereof,  no  power  to  legislate  on  this 
subject  can  be  derived  from  the  general  grant.  Nor 
can  any  such  power  be  derived  from  any  special  grant 
in  any  other  part  of  the  Constitution  ;  for  none  such 
exists.  The  conclusion  must  be,  that  no  power  is 
delegated  to  Congress  over  the  surrender  of  fugitives 
from  service. 

In  all  contemporary  discussions  and  comments,  the 
Constitution  was  constantly  justified  and  recommended, 
on  the  ground  that  the  powers  not  given  to  the  Gov- 
ernment were  withheld  from  it.  If  under  its  original 
provisions  any  doubt  could  have  existed  on  this  head, 
it  was  removed,  so  far  as  language  could  remove  it,  by 
the  Tenth  Amendment,  which,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  expressly  declares,  that  "  The  powers  not  dele- 
gated to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor 
prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the 
States  respectively  or  to  the  people."  Here  on  the 
simple  text  of  the  Constitution  I  might  leave  this 


FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     127 

question.  But  its  importance  justifies  a  more  extended 
examination  in  a  two-fold  light ;  first ,  in  the  history 
of  the  Convention,  revealing  the  unmistakeable  inten- 
tion of  its  members ;  and  secondly,  in  the  true  princi- 
ples of  our  Political  System,  by  which  the  powers  of 
the  Nation  and  of  the  States  are  respectively  guarded. 

Look  first  at  the  history  of  the  Convention.  The 
articles  of  the  old  Confederation,  adopted  by  the 
Continental  Congress,  15th  November,  1777,  though 
containing  no  reference  to  fugitives  from  service,  had 
provisions  substantially  like  those  in  our  present  Con- 
stitution, touching  the  privileges  of  citizens  in  the 
several  States,  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  justice, 
and  the  credit  due  to  the  public  records  of  States. 
But,  since  the  Confederation  had  no  powers  not  "  ex- 
pressly delegated,"  and  as  no  power  was  delegated  to 
legislate  on  these  matters,  they  were  nothing  more 
than  articles  of  treaty  or  compact.  Afterwards,  at  the 
National  Convention,  these  three  provisions  found  a 
place  in  the  first  reported  draft  of  a  Constitution,  and 
they  were  arranged  in  the  very  order  which  they 
occupied  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  The  clause 
relating  to  public  records  stood  last.  Mark  this  fact. 

When  this  clause,  being  in  form  merely  a  compact, 
came  up  for  consideration  in  the  Convention,  various 
efforts  were  made  to  graft  upon  it  a  power.  This  was 
on  the  very  day  of  the  adoption  of  the  clause  relating 
to  fugitives  from  service.  Charles  Pinckney  moved  to 
commit  it  with  a  proposition  for  a  power  to  establish 
uniform  laws  on  the  subject  of  bankruptcy  and  foreign 
bills  of  exchange.  Mr.  Madison  was  in  favor  of  a 
power  for  the  execution  of  judgments  in  other  States. 
Gouverneur  Morris  on  the  same  day  moved  to  commit 


128    FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL. 

a  further  proposition  for  a  power  "  to  determine  the 
proof  and  effect  of  such  acts,  records  and  proceedings." 
Amidst  all  these  efforts  to  associate  a  power  with  this 
compact,  it  is  clear  that  nobody  supposed  that  any 
such  already  existed.  This  narrative  places  the  views 
of  the  Convention  beyond  question. 

The  compact  regarding  public  records,  together  with 
these  various  propositions,  was  referred  to  a  Committee, 
on  which  were  Mr.  Randolph  and  Mr.  Wilson,  with 
John  Rutledge,  of  South  Carolina,  as  chairman.  After 
several  days,  they  reported  the  compact,  with  a  power 
in  Congress  to  prescribe  by  general  laws  the  manner  in 
which  such  records  shall  be  proved.  A  discussion 
ensued,  in  which  Mr.  Randolph  complained  that  the 
"  definition  of  the  powers  of  the  Government  was  so 
loose  as  to  give  it  opportunities  of  usurping  all  the 
State  powers.  He  was  for  not  going  further  than  the 
report,  which  enables  the  Legislature  to  provide  for  the 
effect  of  judgments."  The  clause  of  compact  with  the 
power  attached  was  then  adopted,  and  is  now  a  part 
of  the  Constitution.  In  presence  of  this  solicitude  for 
the  preservation  of  "  State  powers,"  even  while  con- 
sidering a  proposition  for  an  express  power,  and  also 
of  the  distinct  statement  of  Mr.  Randolph,  that  he 
"was  not  for  going  further  than  the  report,'  it  is 
evident  that  the  idea  could  not  then  have  occurred, 
that  a  power  was  coupled  with  the  naked  clause  of 
compact  on  fugitives  from  service. 

At  a  later  day,  the  various  clauses  and  articles 
severally  adopted  from  time  to  time  in  Convention, 
were  referred  to  a  committee  of  revision  and  arrange- 
ment, that  they  might  be  reduced  to  form  as  a  con- 
nected whole.  Here  another  change  was  made.  The 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     129 

clause  relating  to  public  records,  with  the  power  at- 
tached, was  taken  from  its  original  place  at  the  bottom 
of  the  clauses  of  compact,  and  promoted  to  stand  first 
in  the  article,  as  a  distinct  section,  while  the  other 
clauses  of  compact  concerning  citizens,  fugitives  from 
justice,  and  fugitives  from  service,  each  and  all  with- 
out any  power  attached,  by  a  natural  association  com- 
pose but  a  single  section,  thus  : 

•rtWT'  .-•'  i  KM 

"AKTICLE  IV. 

"  SECTION  1.  Full  faith  and  credit  shall  be  given  in  each 
State  to  the  public  acts,  records  and  judicial  proceedings  of  every 
other  State.  Jlnd  the  Congress  may  by  general  laws  prescribe 
the  manner  in  which  such  acts,  records,  and  proceedings  shall  be 
proved,  and  the  effect  thereof. 

"  SECTION  2.  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States. 

"  A  person  charged  in  any  State  with  treason,  felony,  or  other 
crime,  who  shall  flee  from  justice,  and  be  found  in  another  State, 
shall,  on  demand  of  the  Executive  authority  of  the  State  from 
which  he  fled,  be  delivered  up,  to  be  removed  to  the  State  having 
jurisdiction  of  the  crime. 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the 
laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any 
law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or 
labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom 
such  service  or  labor  may  be  due. 

"  SECTION  3.  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress 
into  this  Union  ;  but  no  new  State  shall  be  formed  or  erected 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  other  State,  nor  any  State  be  formed 
by  the  junction  of  two  or  more  States,  or  parts  of  States,  without 
the  consent  of  the  Legislatures  of  the  States  concerned,  as  well 
as  of  the  Congress. 

"  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all 
needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other 
property  belonging  to  the  United  States  ;  and  nothing  in  this 


130     FREEDOM    NATIONAL  J    SLAVEEY    SECTIONAL. 

Constitution  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  prejudice  any  claims  of 
the  United  States,  or  of  any  particular  State. 

"SECTION  4.  The  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every 
State  in  this  Union  a  republican  form  of  Government,  and  shall 
protect  each  of  them  against  invasion,  and  on  application  of  the 
Legislature,  or  of  the  Executive,  (when  the  Legislature  cannot 
be  convened,)  against  domestic  violence." 

Here  is  the  whole  article.  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  third  section  immediately  following  the  triad  section 
of  compacts,  contains  two  specific  powers,  one  with 
regard  to  new  States,  and  the  other  with  regard  to  the 
Public  Treasury.  These  are  naturally  grouped  to- 
gether, while  the  fourth  section  of  this  same  article, 
which  is  distinct  in  its  character,  is  placed  by  itself. 
In  the  absence  of  all  specific  information,  reason  alone 
can  determine  why  this  arrangement  was  made.  But 
the  conclusion  is  obvious,  that,  in  the  view  of  the 
Committee  and  of  the  Convention,  each  of  these  sec- 
tions differs  from  the  others.  The  first  contains  a 
compact  with  a  grant  of  power.  The  second  contains 
provisions,  all  of  which  are  simple  compacts,  and  two 
of  which  were  confessedly  simple  compacts  in  the  old 
Articles  of  Confederation,  from  which,  unchanged  in 
letter  or  spirit,  they  were  borrowed.  The  third  is  a 
two-fold  grant  of  power  to  Congress,  without  any  com- 
pact. The  fourth  is  neither  power  nor  compact  merely, 
nor  both  united,  but  a  solemn  injunction  upon  the 
National  Government  to  perform  an  important  duty. 

The  framers  of  the  Constitution  were  wise  and  care- 
ful men,  who  had  a  reason  for  what  they  did,  and  who 
understood  the  language  which  they  employed.  They 
did  not,  after  discussion,  incorporate  into  their  work 
any  superfluous  provision ;  nor  did  they  without  design 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     131 

adopt  the  peculiar  arrangement  in  which  it  appears. 
In  adding  to  the  record  compact  the  express  grant  of 
power,  they  testified  not  only  their  desire  for  such 
power  in  Congress  ;  but  their  conviction,  that,  without 
an  express  grant,  it  would  not  exist.  But  if  an  ex- 
press grant  was  necessary  in  this  case,  it  was  equally 
necessary  in  all  the  other  cases.  Expressum  facit 
cessare  taciturn.  Especially,  in  view  of  its  odious 
character,  was  it  necessary  in  the  case  of  fugitives  from 
service.  In  abstaining  from  any  such  grant,  and  then, 
in  grouping  the  bare  compact  with  other  similar  com- 
pacts, separate  from  every  grant  of  power,  they  have 
most  significantly  testified  their  purpose.  They  not 
only  decline  all  addition  of  any  such  power  to  the 
compact,  but,  to  render  misapprehension  impossible,  to 
make  assurance  doubly  sure,  to  exclude  any  contrary 
conclusion,  they  punctiliously  arrange  the  clauses,  on 
the  principle  of  noscitur  a  sociis,  so  as  to  distinguish 
all  the  grants  of  power,  but  especially  to  make  the 
new  grant  of  power,  in  the  case  of  public  records, 
stand  forth  in  the  front  by  itself,  severed  from  the 
mere  naked  compacts  with  which  it  was  originally 
associated. 

Thus  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention  show  that 
the  founders  understood  the  necessity  of  powers  in  cer- 
tain cases,  and,  on  consideration,  most  jealously  granted 
them.  A  closing  example  will  strengthen  the  argu- 
ment. Congress  is  expressly  empowered  "  to  establish 
an  uniform  rule  of  Naturalization,  and  uniform  laws 
on  the  subject  of  Bankruptcies,  throughout  the  United 
States."  Without  this  provision  these  two  subjects 
would  have  been  within  the  control  of  the  States,  and 
the  Nation  would  have  had  no  power  to  establish  an 


132     FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

uniform  rule  thereupon.  Now,  instead  of  the  existing 
compact  on  fugitives  from  service,  it  would  have  heen 
easy,  had  any  such  desire  prevailed,  to  add  this  case  to 
the  clause  on  Naturalization  and  Bankruptcies,  and  to 
empower  Congress  TO  ESTABLISH  AN  UNIFORM  RULE 

FOR  THE  SURRENDER  OF  FUGITIVES  FROM  SERVICE 
THROUGHOUT  THE  UNITED  STATES.  Then,  of  Course, 

whenever  Congress  undertook  to  exercise  the  power, 
all  State  control  of  the  subject  would  have  been  super- 
seded. The  National  Government  would  have  been 
constituted,  like  Nimrod,  the  mighty  Hunter,  with 
power  to  gather  the  huntsmen,  to  halloo  the  pack,  and 
to  direct  the  chase  of  men,  ranging  at  will,  without 
regard  to  boundaries  or  jurisdictions,  throughout  all 
the  States.  But  no  person  in  the  Convention,  not  one 
of  the  reckless  partisans  of  slavery,  was  so  audacious 
as  to  make  this  proposition.  Had  it  been  distinctly 
made,  it  would  have  been  distinctly  denied. 

The  fact  that  the  provision  on  this  subject  was 
adopted  unanimously,  while  showing  the  little  impor- 
tance attached  to  it  in  the  shape  it  finally  assumed, 
testifies  also  that  it  could  not  have  been  regarded  as  a 
source  of  National  power  over  Slavery.  It  will  be 
remembered,  that,  among  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion, were  Gouverneur  Morris,  who  had  said,  that  he 
"  never  would  concur  in  upholding  domestic  slavery  ;  " 
Elbridge  Gerry,  who  thought  "  we  ought  to  be  careful 
NOT  to  give  any  sanction  to  it;"  Roger  Sherman,  who 
was  OPPOSED  to  any  clause  "  acknowledging  men  to  be 
property  ;  "  James  Madison,  who  "  thought  it  WRONG 
to  admit  in  the  Constitution  the  idea  that  there  could 
be  property  in  man;"  and  Benjamin  Franklin,  who 
likened  American  slaveholders  to  Algerine  corsairs. 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     133 

In  the  face  of  these  unequivocal  statements,  it  is 
absurd  to  suppose  that  they  consented  unanimously  to 
any  provision  by  which  the  National  Government,  the 
work  of  their  hands,  dedicated  to  Freedom,  could  be 
made  the  most  offensive  instrument  of  Slavery. 

Thus  much  for  the  evidence  from  the  history  of  the 
Convention.  But  the  true  principles  of  our  Political 
System  are  in  harmony  with  this  conclusion  of  his- 
tory ;  and  here  let  me  say  a  word  of  State  Rights. 

It  was  the  purpose  of  our  fathers  to  create  a  Na- 
tional Government,  and  to  endow  it  with  adequate 
powers.  They  had  known  the  perils  of  imbecility, 
discord  and  confusion,  during  the  uncertain  days  of 
the  Confederation,  and  desired  a  Government  which 
should  be  a  true  bond  of  Union  and  an  efficient  organ 
of  the  national  interests  at  home  and  abroad.  But 
while  fashioning  this  agency,  they  fully  recognized 
the  Governments  of  the  States.  'To  the  nation  were 
delegated  high  powers,  essential  to  the  national  inter- 
ests, but  specific  in  character  and  limited  in  number. 
To  the  States  and  to  the  people  were  reserved  the 
powers,  general  in  character  and  unlimited  in  number, 
not  delegated  to  the  Nation  or  prohibited  to  the 
States. 

The  integrity  of  our  Political  System  depends  upon 
harmony  in  the  operations  of  the  Nation  and  of  the 
States.  While  the  Nation  within  its  wide  orbit  is  su- 
preme, the  States  move  with  equal  supremacy  in  their 
own.  But  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  the  supremacy 
of  each  in  its  proper  place  excludes  the  other.  The 
Nation  cannot  exercise  rights  reserved  to  the  States ; 
nor  can  the  States  interfere  with  the  powers  of  the 
Nation.  Any  such  action  on  either  side  is  a  usurpa- 
12 


134    FBEEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAYERY  SECTIONAL. 

tion.  These  principles  were  distinctly  declared  by 
Mr.  Jefferson,  in  1798,  in  words  often  adopted  since  ; 
and  which  must  find  acceptance  from  all  parties : 

"  That  the  several  States  composing  the  United  States  of  America 
are  not  united  upon  the  principle  of  unlimited  submission  to  the 
General  Government ;  but  that  by  compact,  under  the  style  and 
title  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  amend- 
ments thereto,  they  constituted  a  General  Government  for  special 
purposes,  delegated  to  that  Government  certain  definite  powers, 
reserving  each  State  to  itself,  the  residuary  mass  of  right  to  their 
own  self-government,  and  that  wheresoever  the  General  Govern- 
ment assumes  undelegated  powers,  its  acts  are  unauthorized, 
void,  and  of  no  force.' 

But  I  have  already  amply  shown  to-day  that  Slavery 
is  in  no  respect  national  —  that  it  is  not  within  the 
sphere  of  national  activity  —  that  it  has  no  "  positive  " 
support  in  the  Constitution,  and  that  any  interpreta- 
tion thereof  consistent  with  this  principle  would  be 
abhorrent  to  the  sentiments  of  its  founders.  Slavery 
is  a  local  institution,  peculiar  to  the  States  and  under 
the  guardianship  of  State  Rights.  It  is  impossible, 
without  violence,  at  once  to  the  spirit  and  to  the  letter 
of  the  Constitution,  to  attribute  to  Congress  any 
power  to  legislate,  either  for  its  abolition  in  the  States 
or  its  support  anywhere.  Non-intervention  is  the  rule 
prescribed  to  the  Nation.  Regarding  the  question 
only  in  its  more  general  aspects,  and  putting  aside, 
for  the  moment,  the  perfect  evidence  from  the  records 
of  the  Convention,  it  is  palpable  that  there  is  no 
national  fountain  out  of  which  the  existing  Slave  Act 
can  be  derived. 

But  this  Act  is  not  only  an  unwarrantable  assump- 
tion of  power  by  the  Nation  ;  it  is  also  an  infraction 


Is'ATIONAI,;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     135 

of  rights  reserved  to  the  States.  Everywhere  within 
their  borders  the  States  are  the  peculiar  guardians  of 
personal  liberty.  By  Jury  and  Habeas  Corpus  to  save 
the  citizen  harmless  against  all  assault  is  among  their 
duties  and  rights.  To  his  State  the  citizen  when 
oppressed  may  appeal,  nor  should  he  find  that  appeal 
denied.  But  this  Act  despoils  him  of  his  rights,  and 
despoils  his  State  of  all  power  to  protect  him.  It 
subjects  him  to  the  wretched  chances  of  false  oaths, 
forged  papers  and  facile  commissioners,  and  takes 
from  him  every  safeguard.  Now,  if  the  slaveholder 
has  a  right  to  be  secure  at  home  in  the  enjoyment  of 
Slavery,  so  also  has  the  freeman  of  the  North  —  and 
every  person  there  is  presumed  to  be  a  freeman  —  an 
equal  right  to  be  secure  at  home  in  the  enjoyment  of 
Freedom.  The  same  principle  of  State  Rights  by 
which  Slavery  is  protected  in  the  Slave  States  throws 
an  impenetrable  shield  over  Freedom  in  the  Free 
States.  And  here,  let  me  say,  is  the  only  security  for 
Slavery  in  the  Slave  States  as  for  Freedom  in  the 
Free  States.  In  the  present  fatal  overthrow  of  State 
Rights  you  teach  a  lesson  which  may  return  to  plague 
the  teacher.  Compelling  the  National  Government  to 
stretch  its  Briarean  arms  into  the  Free  States,  for  the 
sake  of  Slavery,  you  show  openly  how  it  may  stretch 
these  same  hundred  giant  arms  into  the  Slave  States 
for  the  sake  of  Freedom.  This  lesson  was  not  taught 
by  our  fathers. 

And  here  I  end  this  branch  of  the  question.  The 
true  principles  of  our  Political  System,  the  history  of 
the  National  Convention,  the  natural  interpretation 
of  the  Convention,  all  teach  that  this  Act  is  a  usurpa- 
tion by  Congress  of  powers  that  do  not  belong  to  it, 


136      FBEEDOAI    NATIONAL  ;    SILVERY    SECTIONAL. 

and  an  infraction  of  rights  secured  to  the  States.  It 
is  a  sword,  whose  handle  is  at  the  National  Capital, 
and  whose  point  is  everywhere  in  the  States.  A 
weapon  so  terrible  to  Personal  Liberty  the  Nation  has 
no  power  to  grasp. 

(2.)  And  now  of  the  denial  of  Trial  by  Jury.  Ad- 
mitting, for  the  moment,  that  Congress  is  entrusted 
with  power  over  this  subject,  which  truth  disowns, 
still  the  Act  is  again  radically  unconstitutional  from 
its  denial  of  Trial  by  Jury  in  a  question  of  Personal 
Liberty  and  a  suit  at  common  law.  Since  on  the  one 
side  there  is  a  claim  of  property,  and  on  the  other  of 
liberty,  both  property  and  liberty  are  involved  in  the 
issue.  To  this  claim  on  either  side  is  attached  Trial 
by  Jury. 

To  me,  sir,  regarding  this  matter  in  the  light  of  the 
common  law  and  in  the  blaze  of  free  institutions,  it 
has  always  seemed  impossible  to  arrive  at  any  other 
conclusion.  If  the  language  of  the  Constitution  were 
open  to  doubt,  which  it  is  not,  still  all  the  presump- 
tions of  law,  all  the  leanings  for  Freedom,  all  the 
suggestions  of  justice,  plead  angel-tongued  for  this 
right.  Nobody  doubts  that  Congress,  if  it  legislates 
on  this  matter,  may  allow  a  Trial  by  Jury.  But  if  it 
may,  so  overwhelming  is  the  claim  of  justice,  it  MUST. 
Beyond  this,  however,  the  question  is  determined  by 
the  precise  letter  of  the  Constitution. 

Several  expressions  in  the  provision  for  the  surren- 
der of  fugitives  from  service,  show  the  essential  char- 
acter of  the  proceedings.  In  the  first  place,  the 
person  must  be,  not  merely  charged,  as  in  the  case 
of  fugitives  from  justice,  but  actually  held  to  service 


FBEEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVEBY  SECTIOXAL.     137 

in  the  State  from  which  he  escaped.  In  the  second 
place,  he  must  be  "  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party 
to  whom  such  labor  is  due."  These  two  facts,  that 
he  was  held  to  service,  and  that  his"  service  was  due  to 
his  claimant,  are  directly  placed  in  issue,  and  must  be 
proved.  Two  necessary  incidents  of  the  delivery  may 
also  be  observed.  First,  it  must  be  made  in  the  State 
where  the  fugitive  is  found ;  and,  secondly,  it  restores 
to  the  claimant  his  complete  control  over  the  person 
of  the  fugitive.  From  these  circumstances  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  proceedings  cannot  be  regarded,  in  any 
just  sense,  as  preliminary,  or  ancillary  to  some  future 
formal  trial,  but  as  complete  in  themselves,  final  and 
conclusive. 

And  these  proceedings  determine  on  the  one  side 
the  question  of  property,  and  on  the  other  the  sacred 
question  of  Personal  Liberty  in  its  most  transcendent 
form ;  not  merely  Liberty  for  a  day  or  a  year,  but  for 
life,  and  the  Liberty  of  generations  that  shall  come 
after,  so  long  as  Slavery  endures.  To  these  questions, 
the  Constitution,  by  two  specific  provisions,  attaches 
the  Trial  by  Jury.  One  of  these  is  the  familiar  clause, 
already  adduced  :  "  No  person  shall  be  deprived  of 
life,  liberty  or  property,  without  due  process  of  law  ;  " 
that  is,  without  due  proceedings  at  law,  with  Trial  by 
Jury.  Not  stopping  to  dwell  on  this,  I  press  at  once 
to  the  other  provision,  which  is  still  more  express  : 
"  In  suits  at  common  law,  where  the  value  in  contro- 
versy shall  exceed  twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  Trial 
by  Jury  shall  be  preserved."  This  clause,  which  was 
not  in  the  original  Constitution,  when  first  adopted, 
was  suggested  by  the  very  spirit  of  Freedom.  At  the 
close  of  the  National  Convention,  Elbridge  Gerry  re- 
12* 


138     FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL. 

fused  to  sign  the  Constitution,  because,  among  other 
things,  it  established  a  "  tribunal  without  juries,  a  Star 
Chamber  as  to  civil  cases."  Many  united  in  his  op- 
position, and  on  the  recommendation  of  the  First 
Congress  this  additional  safeguard  was  adopted  as  an 
amendment. 

Now,  regarding  the  question  as  one  of  property,  or 
of  Personal  Liberty,  in  either  alternative  the  Trial  by 
Jury  is  secured.  For  this  position  authority  is  ample. 
In  the  debate  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill  of  1817-18, 
a  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  Mr.  Smith,  anxious 
for  the  asserted  right  of  property,  objected,  on  this 
very  floor,  to  a  reference  of  the  question,  under  the 
writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  to  a  judge  without  a  jury. 
Speaking  solely  for  property,  these  were  his  words : 

"  This  would  give  the  Judge  the  sole  power  of  deciding  the 
right  of  property  the  master  claims  in  his  slaves,  instead  of  try- 
ing that  right  by  a  jury,  as  prescribed  by  the  Constitution.  He 
would  be  judge  of  matters  of  law  and  matters  of  fact ;  clothed 
with  all  the  powers  of  a  court.  Such  a  principle  is  unknown  in 
your  system  of  jurisprudence.  Your  Constitution  has  forbidit. 
It  preserves  the  right  of  Trial  by  Jury  in  all  cases  where  the  value 
in  controversy  exceeds  twenty  dollars."  —  (Debates  in  National 
Intelligencer,  June  15,  1818.) 

But  this  provision  has  been  repeatedly  discussed  by 
the  Supreme  Court,  so  that  its  meaning  is  not  open  to 
doubt.  Three  conditions  are  necessary.  First,  the 
proceedings  must  be  "  a  suit ;  "  secondly,  "  at  common 
law  ;  "  and  thirdly,  "  where  the  value  in  controversy 
exceeds  twenty  dollars."  In  every  such  case  "  the  right 
of  Trial  by  Jury  shall  be  preserved."  The  decisions  of 
the  Supreme  Court  expressly  touch  each  of  these  points. 

First.    In  the  case  of  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  (6  Whea- 


.FBEEDOM   NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.      139 

ton,  407,)  the  Court  say  :  "  What  is  a  suit  ?  We 
understand  it  to  be  the  prosecution  of  some  claim, 
demand  or  request."  Of  course,  then,  the  "  claim  " 
for  a  fugitive  must  be  "  a  suit." 

Secondly.  In  the  case  of  Parsons  v.  Bedford,  (3 
Peters,  456,)  while  considering  this  very  clause,  the 
Court  say  :  "  By  common  law  is  meant  not  merely  suits 
which  the  common  law  recognized  among  its  old  and 
settled  proceedings,  but  suits  in  which  legal  rights 
were  to  be  ascertained  and  determined.  In  a  just 
sense,  the  Amendment  may  well  be  construed  to  em- 
brace all  suits,  which  are  not  of  Equity  or  Admiralty 
jurisdiction,  whatever  may  be  the  peculiar  form  which 
they  may  assume  to  settle  legal  rights."  Now,  since 
the  claim  for  a  fugitive  is  not  a  suit  in  Equity  or  Ad- 
miralty, but  a  suit  to  settle  what  are  called  legal 
rights,  it  must,  of  course,  be  "  a  suit  at  common  law." 

Thirdly.  In  the  case  of  Lee  v.  Lee,  (8  Peters,  44,) 
on  a  question  whether  "  the  value  in  controversy  " 
was  "  one  thousand  dollars  and  upwards,"  it  was  ob- 
jected that  the  appellants,  who  were  petitioners  for 
Freedom,  were  not  of  the  value  of  one  thousand  dollars. 
But  the  Court  said  :  "  The  matter  in  dispute  is  the 
Freedom  of  the  petitioners.  This  is  not  susceptible 
of  pecuniary  valuation.  No  doubt  is  entertained  of 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court."  Of  course,  then,  since 
liberty  is  above  price,  the  claim  to  any  fugitive  always 
and  necessarily  presumes  that  "  the  value  in  contro- 
versy exceeds  twenty  dollars." 

By  these  successive  steps,  sustained  by  decisions  of 
the  highest  tribunal,  it  appears,  as  in  a  diagram,  that 
the  right  of  Trial  by  Jury  is  secured  to  the  fugitive 
from  service. 


140      FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

This  conclusion  needs  no  further  authority ;  but  it 
may  receive  curious  illustration  from  the  ancient  records 
of  the  common  law,  so  familiar  and  dear  to  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution.  It  is  said  by  Mr.  Burke,  in  his 
magnificent  speech  on  Conciliation  with  America,  that 
"  nearly  as  many  of  Blackstone's  Commentaries  were 
sold  in  America  as  in  England,"  carrying  thither  the 
knowledge  of  those  vital  principles  of  Freedom,  which 
were  the  boast  of  the  British  Constitution.  Imbued 
by  these,  the  earliest  Continental  Congress,  in  1774, 
declared,  "  That  the  respective  Colonies  are  entitled  to 
the  common  law  of  England,  and  especially  to  the 
great  and  inestimable  privilege  of  being  tried  by  their 
peers  of  the  vicinage  according  to  the  course  of  that 
law.:'  Thus,  amidst  the  troubles  which  heralded  the 
Revolution,  the  common  law  was  claimed  by  our 
fathers  as  a  birthright. 

Now,  although  the  common  law  may  not  be  ap- 
proached as  a  source  of  jurisdiction  under  the  National 
Constitution  —  and  on  this  point  I  do  not  dwell  —  it 
is  clear  that  it  may  be  employed  to  determine  the  mean- 
ing of  technical  terms  in  the  Constitution  borrowed  from 
this  law.  This,  indeed,  is  expressly  sanctioned  by  Mr. 
Madison,  in  his  celebrated  report  of  1799,  while  re- 
straining the  extent  to  which  the  common  law  may  be 
employed.  Thus  by  this  law  we  learn  the  nature  of 
Trial  by  Jury,  which,  though  secured,  is  not  described 
by  the  Constitution ;  also  of  Bills  of  Attainder,  the 
Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  and  Impeachment,  all  technical 
terms  of  the  Constitution  borrowed  from  the  common 
law.  By  this  law,  and  its  associate  Chancery,  we 
learn  what  are  cases  in  law  and  equity  to  which  the 
judicial  power  of  the  United  States  is  extended.  These 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAYEBY    SECTIONAL.      141 

instances  I  adduce  merely  by  way  of  example.  Of 
course  also  in  the  same  way  we  learn  what  in  reality 
are  suits  at  common  law. 

Now,  on  principle  and  authority,  a  claim  for  the 
delivery  of  a  fugitive  slave  is  a  suit  at  common  law,  and 
is  embraced  naturally  and  necessarily  in  this  class  of 
judicial  proceedings.  This  proposition  can  be  placed 
beyond  question.  And  here,  especially,  let  me  ask 
the  attention  of  all  learned  in  the  law.  On  this  point, 
as  on  every  other  other  in  this  argument,  I  challenge 
inquiry  and  answer. 

History  painfully  records,  that  during  the  early  days 
of  the  common  law,  and  down  even  to  a  late  period,  a 
system  of  slavery  existed  in  England,  known  under 
the  name  of  villanage.  The  slave  was  generally  called 
a  villain,  though  in  the  original  Latin  forms  of  judicial 
proceedings,  he  was  termed  nativus,  implying  slavery 
by  birth.  The  incidents  of  this  condition  have  been 
minutely  described,  and  also  the  mutual  remedies  of 
master  and  slave,  all  of  which  were  regulated  by 
the  common  law.  Slaves  sometimes  then,  as  now, 
escaped  from  their  masters.  The  claim  for  them  after 
such  escape  was  prosecuted  by  a  "  suit  at  common  law," 
to  which,  as  to  every  suit  at  common  law,  the  Trial  by 
Jury  was  necessarily  attached.  Blackstone,  in  his 
Commentaries,  (Vol.  II.  p.  93,)  in  words  which  must 
have  been  known  to  all  the  lawyers  of  the  Convention, 
said  of  villains  :  "  They  could  not  leave  their  lord 
without  his  permission,  but  if  they  ran  away,  or  were 
purloined  from  him,  might  be  CLAIMED  and  recovered 
by  ACTION,  like  beasts  or  other  cattle."  This  very 
word  "  action  "  of  itself  implies  "  a  suit  at  common 
law,"  with  Trial  by  Jury. 


142      FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVEBY    SECTIONAL. 

From  other  sources  we  learn  precisely  what  the 
action  was.  That  great  expounder  of  the  ancient  law, 
Mr.  Hargrave,  says,  "  That  Year  Books  and  Books  of 
Entries  are  full  of  the  forms  used  in  pleading  a  title 
to  villains."  Though  no  longer  of  practical  value  in 
England,  they  remain  as  monuments  of  jurisprudence, 
and  as  mementoes  of  a  barbarous  institution.  He 
thus  describes  the  remedy  of  the  master  at  common 
law: 

"  The  lord's  remedy  for  a  fugitive  villain  was,  either  by 
seizure  or  by  suing  out  a  writ  of  JVativo  Habendo,  or  Neifty,  as 
it  is  sometimes  called.  If  the  lord  seized,  the  villain's  most  effec- 
tual mode  of  recovering  liberty  was  by  the  writ  of  Homine  Re- 
plegiando,  which  had  great  advantage  over  the  writ  of  Habeas 
Corpus.  In  the  Habeas  Corpus  the  return  cannot  be  contested 
by  pleading  against  the  truth  of  it,  and  consequently  on  a  Habeas 
Corpusr  the  question  of  liberty  cannot  go  to  a  jury  for  trial. 
But  in  the  Homine  Replegiando  it  was  otherwise.  The  plaintiff, 
on  the  defendant's  pleading  villanage,  had  the  same  opportunity 
of  contesting  it,  as  when  impleaded  by  the  lord  in  a  Nativo 
Habendo.  If  the  lord  sued  out  a  Nativo  Habendo,  and  the  vil- 
lanage was  denied,  in  which  case  the  sheriff  could  not  seize  the 
villain,  the  lord  was  then  to  enter  his  plaint  in  the  county  court, 
and  as  the  sheriff  was  not  allowed  to  try  the  question  of  villa- 
nage in  his  court,  the  lord  could  not  have  any  benefit  from  the 
writ,  without  removing  the  cause  by  the  writ  of  Pone  into  the 
King's  Bench  or  Common  Pleas."  —  (20  Howell's  State  Trials, 
38,  note.) 

The  authority  of  Mr.  Hargrave  is  sufficient.  But  I 
desire  to  place  this  matter  beyond  all  cavil.  From  the 
Digest  of  Lord  Chief  Baron  Comyns,  which,  at  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  was  one  of  the  classics  of 
our  jurisprudence,  I  derive  another  description  of  the 
remedy  of  the  master : 

"  If  the  lord  claims  an  inheritance  in  his  villain,  who  flics  from 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     143 

his  lord  against  his  will,  and  lives  in  a  place  out  of  the  manor, 
to  which  he  is  regardant,  the  lord  shall  have  a  Nativo  Habendo. 
And  upon  such  writ,  directed  to  the  sheriff,  he  may  seize  him 
who  does  not  deny  himself  to  be  a  villain.  But  if  the  defendant 
say  that  he  is  a  Free  Man,  the  sheriif  cannot  seize  him,  but  the 
lord  must  remove  the  writ  by  Pone  before  the  Justices  in  Eire, 
or  in  C.  B.,  where  he  must  count  upon  it."  • —  (Comyns'  Digest  — 
Villanage,  C.  1.) 

An  early  writer  of  peculiar  authority,  Fitzherbert,  in 
his  Natura  Brevium,  on  the  writs  of  the  common  law, 
thus  describes  these  proceedings  : 

"  The  writ  de  Nativo  Habendo  lieth  for  the  lord  who  claimeth 
inheritance  in  any  villain,  when  his  villain  is  run  from  him, 
and  is  remaining  within  any  place  out  of  the  manor  unto  which 
he  is  regardant,  or  when  he  departeth  from  his  lord  against  the 
lord's  will ;  and  the  writ  shall  be  directed  to  the  sheriff.  And 
the  sheriff  may  seize  the  villain,  and  deliver  him  unto  his  lord, 
if  the  villain  confess  unto  the  sheriff  that  he  is  his  villain  ;  but 
if  the  villain  say  to  the  sheriff  that  he  is  frank,  then  it  seemeth 
that  the  sheriff  ought  not  to  seize  him  ;  as  it  is  in  a  replevin,  if 
the  defendant  claim  property,  the  sheriff  cannot  replevy  the 
cattle,  but  the  party  ought  to  sue  a  writ  de  Proprietale  Pro- 
banda ;  and  so  if  the  villain  say  that  he  is  a  free  man,  &c.,  then 
the  sheriff  ought  not  to  seize  him,  but  then  the  lord  ought  to  sue 
a  Pone  to  remove  the  plea  before  the  justices  of  the  Common 
Pleas,  or  before  the  justices  in  eyre.  But  if  the  villain  purchase 
a  writ  de  Libertate  Probanda  before  the  lord  hath  sued  the 
Pone  to  remove  the  plea  before  the  justices,  then  that  writ  of 
Libertate  Probanda  is  a  Supersedeas  unto  the  lord,  that  he 
proceed  not  upon  the  writ  Nativo  Habendo  till  the  eyre  of  the 
justices,  and  that  the  lord  ought  not  to  seize  the  villain  in  the 
meantime." —  (Vol.  I.  p.  76.) 

These  authorities  are  not  merely  applicable  to  the 
general  question  of  freedom ;  but  they  distinctly  con- 
template the  case  of  fugitive  slaves,  and  the  "  suits  at 
common  law"  for  their  rendition.  Blackstone  speaks 


144     FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVEEY    SECTIONAL. 

of  villains  who  "  ran  away  ;  "  Hargrave  of  "  fugitive 
villains ; "  Comyns  of  a  villain  "  who  flies  from  his 
lord  against  his  will ;  "  and  Fitzherbert  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  lord  "when  his  villain  is  run  from  him." 
The  forms,  writs,  counts,  pleadings,  and  judgments,  in 
these  suits,  are  all  preserved  among  the  precedents  of 
the  common  law.  The  writs  are  known  as  original 
writs  which  the  party  on  either  side,  at  the  proper 
stage,  could  sue  out  of  right  without  showing  cause. 
The  writ  of  Libertate  Probanda  for  a  fugitive  slave 
was  in  this  form : 

"  LIBERTATE  PROBANDA. 

"The  king  to  the  sheriff,  &c.  A.  and  B.  her  sister,  have 
showed  unto  us,  that  whereas  they  are  free  women,  and  ready  to 
prove  their  liberty,  F.  claiming  then  to  be  his  niefs  unjustly, 
vexes  them  ;  and  therefore  we  command  you,  that  if  the  afore- 
said A.  and  B.  shall  make  you  secure  touching  the  proving  of 
their  liberty,  then  put  that  plea  before  our  justices  at  the  first 
assizes,  when  they  shall  come  into  those  parts,  because  proof  of 
this  kind  belongeth  not  to  you  to  take  ;  and  in  the  meantime 
cause  the  said  A.  and  B.  to  have  peace  thereupon,  and  tell  the 
aforesaid  F.  that  he  may  be  there,  if  he  will,  to  prosecute  his 
plea  thereof  against  the  aforesaid  A.  and  B.  And  have  there 
this  writ.  Witness,  &c."  —  (Fitzherbert,  Vol.  I.  p.  77.) 

By  these  various  proceedings,  all  ending  in  Trial  by 
Jury,  Personal  Liberty  was  guarded,  even  in  the  early, 
unrefined,  and  barbarous  days  of  the  common  law. 
Any  person  claimed  as  a  fugitive  slave  might  invoke 
this  Trial  as  a  sacred  right.  Whether  the  master  pro- 
ceeded by  seizure,  as  he  might,  or  by  legal  process, 
the  Trial  by  Jury  in  a  suit  at  common  law,  before  one 
of  the  high  courts  of  the  realm,  was  equally  secured. 
In  the  case  of  seizure,  the  fugitive,  reserving  the  pro- 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     145 

ceedings,  might  institute  process  against  his  master  and 
appeal  to  a  court  and  jury.  In  the  case  of  process  by 
the  master,  the  watchful  law  secured  to  the  fugitive  the 
same  protection.  By  no  urgency  of  force,  by  no  device 
of  process,  could  any  person  claimed  as  a  slave  be 
defrauded  of  this  Trial.  Such  was  the  common  law. 
If  its  early  boast,  that  there  could  be  no  slaves  in 
England,  fails  to  be  true,  this  at  least  may  be  its  pride, 
that,  according  to  its  indisputable  principles,  the  Lib- 
erty of  every  man  was  placed  under  the  guard  of  Trial 
by  Jury. 

These  things  may  seem  new  to  us ;  but  they  must 
have  been  known  to  the  members  of  the  Convention, 
particularly  to  those  from  South  Carolina,  through 
whose  influence  the  provision  on  this  subject  was 
adopted.  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney  and  Mr.  Rut- 
ledge  had  studied  law  at  the  Temple,  one  of  the 
English  Inns  of  Court.  It  would  be  a  discredit  to 
them,  and  also  to  other  learned  lawyers,  members  of 
the  Convention,  to  suppose  that  they  were  not  con- 
versant with  the  principles  and  precedents  directly 
applicable  to  this  subject,  all  of  which  are  set  down  in 
works  of  acknowledged  weight,  and  at  that  time  of 
constant  professional  study.  Only  a  short  time  before, 
in  the  case  of  Somerset!,,  they  had  been  most  elaborately 
examined  in  Westminster  Hall.  In  a  forensic  effort 
of  unsurpassed  learning  and  elevation,  which  of  itself 
vindicates  for  its  author  his  great  juridical  name,  Mr. 
Hargrave  had  fully  made  them  known  to  such  as  were 
little  acquainted  with  the  more  ancient  sources.  But 
even  if  we  could  suppose  them  unknown  to  the  lawyers 
of  the  Convention,  they  are  none  the  less  applicable  in 
determining  the  true  meaning  of  the  Constitution. 
13 


146     FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;     SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

The  conclusion  from  this  examination  is  explicit 
Clearly  and  indisputably,  in  England,  the  country  of 
the  common  law,  a  claim  for  a  fugitive  slave  was  "  a 
suit  at  common  law,"  recognized  "  among  its  old  and 
settled  proceedings."  To  question  this,  in  the  face  of 
authentic  principles  and  precedents,  would  be  prepos- 
terous. As  well  might  it  be  questioned,  that  a  writ 
of  replevin  for  a  horse,  or  a  writ  of  right  for  land,  was 
"a  suit  at  common  law."  It  follows,  then,  that  this 
technical  term  of  the  Constitution,  read  in  the  illumi- 
nation of  the  common  law,  naturally  and  necessarily 
embraces  proceedings  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves, 
if  any  such  be  instituted  or  allowed  under  the  Constitu- 
tion. And  thus,  by  the  letter  of  the  Constitution,  in 
harmony  with  the  requirements  of  the  common  law,  all 
such  persons,  when  claimed  by  their  masters,  are  en- 
titled to  a  Trial  by  Jury. 

Such,  sir,  is  the  argument,  briefly  uttered,  against 
the  constitutionality  of  the  Slave  Act.  Much  more  I 
might  say  on  this  matter ;  much  more  on  the  two 
chief  grounds  of  objection  which  I  have  occupied.  But 
I  am  admonished  to  hasten  on. 

Opposing  this  Act  as  doubly  unconstitutional  from  a 
want  of  power  in  Congress  and  from  a  denial  of  Trial 
by  Jury,  I  find  myself  again  encouraged  by  the  example 
of  our  Revolutionary  Fathers,  in  a  case  which  is  one 
of  the  landmarks  of  history.  The  parallel  is  important 
and  complete  In  1765,  the  British  Parliament,  by  a 
notorious  statute,  attempted  to  draw  money  from  the 
colonies  through  a  stamp  tax,  while  the  determination 
of  certain  questions  of  forfeiture  under  the  statute  was 
delegated  —  not  to  the  courts  of  common  law  —  but  to 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     147 

Courts  of  Admiralty  without  a  jury.  The  Stamp  Act, 
now  execrated  by  all  lovers  of  liberty,  had  this  extent 
and  no  more.  Its  passage  was  the  signal  for  a  general 
flame  of  opposition  and  indignation  throughout  the 
Colonies.  It  was  denounced  as  contrary  to  the  British 
Constitution  on  two  principal  grounds ;  Jirst,  as  a 
usurpation  by  Parliament  of  powers  not  belonging  to 
it,  and  an  infraction  of  rights  secured  to  the  Colonies ; 
and  secondly,  as  a  denial  of  Trial  by  Jury  in  certain 
cases  of  property. 

The  public  feeling  was  variously  expressed.  At 
Boston,  on  the  arrival  of  the  stamps,  the  shops  were 
closed,  the  bells  of  the  churches  tolled,  and  the  flags 
of  the  ships  hung  at  half-mast.  At  Portsmouth,  in 
New  Hampshire,  the  bells  were  tolled,  and  notice 
given  to  the  friends  of  Liberty  to  hold  themselves  in 
readiness  to  attend  her  funeral.  At  New  York  a  letter 
was  received  from  Franklin,  then  in  London,  written 
on  the  day  after  the  passage  of  the  Act,  in  which  he 
said :  "  The  sun  of  liberty  is  set."  The  obnoxious 
Act,  headed  "  Folly  of  England  and  Ruin  of  America," 
was  contemptuously  hawked  through  the  streets.  The 
merchants  of  New  York,  inspired  then  by  Liberty, 
resolved  to  import  no  more  goods  from  England  until 
the  repeal  of  the  Act ;  and  their  example  was  followed 
shortly  afterwards  by  the  merchants  of  Philadelphia 
and  Boston.  Bodies  of  patriots  were  organized  every- 
where under  the  name  of  "  Sons  of  Liberty."  The 
orators  also  spoke.  James  Otis  with  fiery  tongue  ap- 
pealed to  Magna  Charta. 

Of  all  the  States,  Virginia  —  whose  shield  bears  the 
image  of  Liberty  trampling  upon  chains  —  first  declared 
herself  by  solemn  resolutions,  which  the  timid  thought 


148     FKEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVEBY    SECTIONAL. 

"  treasonable  ; "  but  which  soon  found  a  response. 
New  York  followed.  Massachusetts  came  next,  speak- 
ing by  the  pen  of  the  inflexible  Samuel  Adams.  In 
an  Address  from  the  Legislature  to  the  Governor,  the 
true  grounds  of  opposition  to  the  Stamp  Act,  coincident 
with  the  two  radical  objections  to  the  Slave  Act,  are 
clearly  set  forth : 

"  You  are  pleased  to  say  that  the  Stamp  Act  is  an  act  of 
Parliament,  and  as  such  ought  to  be  observed.  This  House,  sir, 
has  too  great  reverence  for  the  Supreme  Legislature  of  the  nation 
to  question  its  just  authority.  It  by  no  means  appertains  to  us 
to  presume  to  adjust  the  boundaries  of  the  power  of  Parliament ; 
but  boundaries  there  undoubtedly  are.  We  hope  we  may,  with- 
out offence,  put  your  Excellency  in  mind  of  that  most  grievous 
sentence  of  excommunication  solemnly  denounced  by  the  Church 
in  the  name  of  the  sacred  Trinity,  in  the  presence  of  King  Henry 
the  Third  and  the  estates  of  the  realm,  against  all  those  who 
should  make  statutes  OR  OBSERVE  THEM,  BEING  MADE,  contrary  to 
the  liberties  of  Magna  Charta.  The  Charter  of  this  province 
invests  the  General  Assembly  with  the  power  of  making  laws  for 
its  internal  government  and  taxation  ;  and  this  Charter  has 
never  been  forfeited.  The  Parliament  has  a  right  to  make  all 
laws  within  the  limits  of  their  own  constitution."  ...  "  The 
people  complain  that  the  Act  vests  a  single  judge  of  Admiralty 
with  the  power  to  try  and  determine  their  property  in  contro- 
versies arising  from  internal  concerns,  without  a  jury,  contrary 
to  the  very  expression  of  Magna  Charta,  that  no  freeman  shall 
be  amerced,  but  by  the  oath  of  good  and  lawful  men  of  the 
vicinage."  .  .  .  "  We  deeply  regret  that  the  Parliament  has 
seen  fit  to  pass  such  an  act  as  the  Stamp  Act ;  we  natter  our- 
selves that  the  hardships  of  it  will  shortly  appear  to  them  in 
such  a  light,  as  shall  induce  them  in  their  wisdom  to  repeal  it ; 
in  the  meantime,  we  must  beg  your  Excellency  will  excuse  us 
from  doing  anything  to  assist  in  the  execution  of  it." 

Thus  in  those  days  spoke  Massachusetts !  The  par- 
allel still  proceeds.  The  unconstitutional  Stamp  Act 


FREEDOM:  NATIONAL  ;  SLAVESY  SECTIONAL.    149 

• 

was  welcomed  in  the  Colonies  by  the  Tories  of  that 
day  precisely  as  the  unconstitutional  Slave  Act  has 
been  welcomed  by  large  and  imperious  numbers  among 
us.  Hutchinson,  at  that  time  Lieutenant  Governor 
and  Judge  in  Massachusetts,  wrote  to  Ministers  in 
England :  "  The  Stamp  Act  is  received  with  as  much 
decency  as  could  be  expected.  It  leaves  no  room  for 
evasion,  and  will  execute  itself."  Like  the  judges  of 
our  day,  in  charges  to  grand  juries,  he  resolutely  vindi- 
cated the  Act,  and  admonished  "  the  jurors  and  the 
people  "  to  obey.  Like  Governors  of  our  day,  Bern- 
ard, in  his  speech  to  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts, 
demanded  unreasoning  submission.  "I  shall  not," 
says  this  British  Governor,  "  enter  into  any  disquisition 
of  the  policy  of  this  Act.  I  have  only  to  say  it  is  an 
Act  of  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain;  and  I  trust 
that  the  supremacy  of  that  Parliament  over  all  the 
members  of  their  wide  and  diffused  empire  never  was 
and  never  will  be  denied  within  these  walls."  Like 
marshals  of  our  day,  the  officers  of  the  Customs  made 
"  application  for  a  military  force  to  assist  them  in  the 
execution  of  their  duty."  The  military  were  against 
the  people.  A  British  major  of  artillery  at  New  York 
exclaimed,  in  tones  not  unlike  those  now  sometimes 
heard :  "  I  will  cram  the  stamps  down  their  throats 
with  the  end  of  my  sword."  The  elaborate  answer  of 
Massachusetts  —  a  paper  of  historic  grandeur  —  drawn 
by  Samuel  Adams,  was  pronounced  "  the  ravings  of  a 
parcel  of  wild  enthusiasts." 

Thus  in  those  days  spoke  the  partisans  of  the  Stamp 

Act.     But  their  weakness  soon  became  manifest.     In 

the  face  of  an  awakened  community,  where  discussion 

has  free  scope,  no  men,  though  surrounded  by  office 

13* 


150    FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVEKY  SECTIONAL. 

and  wealth,  can  long  sustain  injustice.  Earth,  water, 
nature,  they  may  subdue  ;  but  Truth  they  cannot  sub- 
due. Subtle  and  mighty,  against  all  efforts  and  de- 
vices, it  fills  every  region  of  light  with  its  majestic 
presence.  The  Stamp  Act  was  discussed  and  understood. 
Its  violation  of  constitutional  rights  was  exposed.  By 
resolutions  of  Legislatures  and  of  town  meetings,  by 
speeches  and  writings,  by  public  assemblies  and  pro- 
cessions, the  country  was  rallied  in  peaceful  phalanx 
against  the  execution  of  the  Act.  To  this  great  object, 
within  the  bounds  of  law  and  the  constitution,  were 
bent  all  the  patriot  energies  of  the  land. 

And  here  Boston  took  the  lead.  Her  records  at  this 
time  are  full  of  proud  memorials.  In  formal  instruc- 
tions to  her  representatives,  adopted  unanimously, 
"having  been  read  several  times,"  in  Town  Meeting 
at  Faneuil  Hall,  the  following  rule  of  conduct  was 
prescribed : 

"  We,  therefore,  think  it  our  indispensable  duty,  in  Justice  to 
ourselves  and  Posterity,  as  it  is  our  undoubted  Privilege,  in  the 
most  open  and  unreserved,  but  decent  and  respectful  Terms,  to 
declare  our  greatest  Dissatisfaction  with  this  Law.  And  we 
think  it  incumbent  upon  you  by  no  Means  to  join  in  any  public 
Measures  for  countenancing  and  assisting  in  the  execution  of 
the  same.  But  to  use  your  best  endeavors  in  the  general  Assem- 
bly to  have  the  inherent  inalienable  Rights  of  the  People  of  this 
Province  asserted,  and  vindicated,  and  left  upon  the  public  rec- 
ord, that  Posterity  may  never  have  reason  to  charge  the  present 
Times  with  the  Guilt  of  tamely  giving  them  away." 

Virginia  responded  to  Boston.  Many  of  her  justices 
of  the  peace  surrendered  their  commissions  "  rather 
than  aid  in  the  enforcement  of  the  law,  or  be  instru- 
mental in  the  overthrow  of  their  country's  liberties." 

As  the  opposition  deepened,  its  natural  tendency  was 


FKEEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVEBY  SECTIONAL.    151 

to  outbreak  and  violence.  But  this  was  carefully  re- 
strained. On  one  occasion  in  Boston  it  showed  itself 
in  the  lawlessness  of  a  mob.  But  the  town,  at  a  pub- 
lic meeting  in  Faneuil  Hall,  called  without  delay  on 
the  motion  of  the  opponents  of  the  Stamp  Act,  with 
James  Otis  as  chairman,  condemned  the  outrage.  Eager 
in  hostility  to  the  execution  of  the  Act,  Boston  cher- 
ished municipal  order,  and  constantly  discountenanced 
all  tumult,  violence  and  illegal  proceedings.  Her 
equal  devotion  to  these  two  objects  drew  the  praises 
and  congratulations  of  other  towns.  In  reply,  March 
27th,  1766,  to  an  Address  from  the  inhabitants  of 
Plymouth,  her  own  consciousness  of  duty  done  is  thus 
expressed : 

"  If  the  inhabitants  of  Boston  have  taken  the  legal  and  war- 
rantable measures  to  prevent  that  misfortune,  of  all  others  the 
most  to  be  dreaded,  the  execution  of  the  Stamp  Act,  and  as  a 
necessary  means  of  preventing  it,  have  made  any  spirited  appli- 
cations for  opening  the  custom-houses  and  courts  of  justice  ;  if 
at  the  same  time  they  have  borne  their  testimony  against  out- 
rageous tumults  and  illegal  proceedings,  and  given  any  example 
of  the  Love  of  Peace  and  good  order,  next  to  the  consciousness  of 
having  done  their  duty  is  the  satisfaction  of  meeting  with  the 
approbation  of  any  of  their  fellow-countrymen." 

Learn  now  from  the  Diary  of  John  Adams  the  results 
of  this  system : 

"  The  year  1765  has  been  the  most  remarkable  year  of  my  life. 
That  enormous  engine,  fabricated  by  the  British  Parliament,  for 
battering  down  all  the  rights  and  liberties  of  America — I  mean 
the  Stamp  Act  —  has  raised  and  spread  through  the  whole  con- 
tinent a  spirit  that  will  be  recorded  to  our  honor  with  all  future 
generations.  In  every  Colony,  from  Georgia  to  New  Hampshire 
inclusively,  the  stamp  distributors  and  inspectors  have  been 
compelled  by  the  unconquerable  rage  of  the  people  to  renounce 


152    FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL. 

their  offices.  Such  and  so  universal  has  been  the  resentment  of 
the  people,  that  every  man  who  has  dared  to  speak  in  favor  of 
the  stamps,  or  to  soften  the  detestation  in  -which  they  are  held, 
how  great  soever  his  abilities  and  virtues  had  been  esteemed  be- 
fore, or  whatever  his  fortune,  connections  and  influence  had 
been,  has  been  seen  to  sink  into  universal  contempt  and  ig- 
nominy." 

The  Stamp  Act  became  a  dead  letter.  At  the 
meeting  of  Parliament  numerous  petitions  were  pre- 
sented, calling  for  its  instant  repeal.  Franklin,  at  that 
time  in  England,  while  giving  his  famous  testimony 
before  the  House  of  Commons,  was  asked  whether  he 
thought  the  people  of  America  would  submit  to  this 
Act  if  modified.  His  brief  emphatic  response  was : 
"  No,  never,  unless  compelled  by  force  of  arms."  Chat- 
ham yet  weak  with  disease,  but  mighty  in  eloquence, 
exclaimed  in  ever-memorable  words :  "  We  are  told 
America  is  obstinate  —  America  is  almost  in  open 
rebellion.  Sir,  1  rejoice  that  America  has  resisted. 
Three  millions  of  people,  so  dead  to  all  the  feelings  of 
liberty  as  voluntarily  to  submit  to  be  slaves,  would 
have  been  fit  instruments  to  make  slaves  of  all  the 
rest.  The  Americans  have  been  wronged ;  they  have 
been  driven  to  madness.  I  will  beg  leave  to  tell  the 
House  in  a  few  words  that  is  really  my  opinion.  It  is 
that  the  Stamp  Act  be  repealed,  absolutely,  totally  and 
immediately."  It  was  repealed.  Within  less  than  a 
year  from  its  original  passage,  denounced  and  discred- 
ited, it  was  driven  from  the  Statute  Book.  In  the 
charnel-house  of  history,  with  the  unclean  things  of 
the  Past,  it  now  rots.  Thither  the  Slave  Act  is  des- 
tined to  follow. 

Sir,  regarding  the  Stamp  Act  candidly  and  cautiously, 
free  from  the  animosities  of  the  time,  it  is  impossible 


FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  J    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.       153 

not  to  see  that,  though  gravely  unconstitutional,  it  was 
at  most  an  infringement  of  civil  liberty  only ;  not  of 
personal  liberty.  There  was  an  unjust  tax  of  a  few 
pence,  with  the  chances  of  amercements  by  a  single 
judge  without  a  jury ;  but,  by  no  provision  of  this 
Act  was  the  personal  liberty  of  any  man  assailed. 
Under  it  no  freeman  could  be  seized  as  a  slave.  Such 
an  Act,  though  justly  obnoxious  to  every  lover  of  Con- 
stitutional Liberty,  cannot  be  viewed  with  the  feelings 
of  repugnance,  enkindled  by  a  statute  which  assails 
the  personal  liberty  of  every  man,  and  under  which 
any  freeman  may  be  seized  as  a  slave.  Sir,  in  placing 
the  Stamp  Act  by  the  side  of  the  Slave  Act,  I  do  in- 
justice to  that  emanation  of  British  tyranny.  Both, 
indeed,  infringe  important  rights  ;  one  of  property ; 
the  other  the  vital  right  of  all,  which  is  to  other  rights 
as  the  soul  to  the  body  —  the  right  of  a  man  to  him- 
self. Both  are  condemned ;  but  their  relative  con- 
demnation must  be  measured  by  their  relative  characters. 
As  Freedom  is  more  than  property ;  as  Man  is  above 
the  dollar  that  he  earns  ;  as  Heaven,  to  which  we  all 
aspire,  is  higher  than  the  earth,  where  every  accumula- 
tion of  wealth  must  ever  remain ;  so  are  the  rights 
assailed  by  an  American  Congress  higher  than  those 
once  assailed  by  the  British  Parliament.  And  just  in 
this  degree  must  history  condemn  the  Slave  Act  more 
than  the  Stamp  Act. 

Sir,  I  might  here  stop.  It  is  enough  in  this  place, 
and  on  this  occasion,  to  show  the  unconstitutionality 
of  this  enactment.  Your  duty  commences  at  once. 
All  legislation  hostile  to  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
land  should  be  repealed  without  delay.  But  the  argu- 


154      FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

ment  is  not  yet  exhausted.  Even  if  this  Act  could 
claim  any  validity  or  apology  under  the  Constitution, 
which  it  cannot,  it  lacks  that  essential  support  in  the 
Public  Conscience  of  the  States,  where  it  is  to  be 
enforced,  which  is  the  life  of  all  law,  and  without  which 
any  law  must  become  a  dead  letter. 

The  Senator  from  South  Carolina  (Mr.  Butler)  was 
right,  when,  at  the  beginning  of  the  session,  he  point- 
edly said  that  a  law  which  could  be  enforced  only  by 
the  bayonet,  was  no  law.  Sir,  it  is  idle  to  suppose 
that  an  Act  of  Congress  becomes  effective,  merely  by 
compliance  with  the  forms  of  legislation.  Something 
more  is  necessary.  The  Act  must  be  in  harmony  with 
the  prevailing  public  sentiment  of  the  community 
upon  which  it  bears.  Of  course,  I  do  not  suggest  that 
the  cordial  support  of  every  man  or  of  every  small 
locality  is  necessary ;  but  I  do  mean  that  the  public 
feelings,  the  public  convictions,  the  public  con- 
science, must  not  be  touched,  wounded,  lacerated, 
by  every  endeavor  to  enforce  it.  With  all  these,  it 
must  be  so  far  in  harmony,  that,  like  other  laws, 
by  which  property,  liberty  and  life  are  guarded,  it 
may  be  administered  by  the  ordinary  process  of  courts, 
without  jeoparding  the  public  peace  or  shocking  good 
men.  If  this  be  true  as  a  general  rule  —  if  the  public 
support  and  sympathy  be  essential  to  the  life  of  all 
law,  —  this  is  especially  the  case  in  an  enactment  which 
concerns  the  important  and  sensitive  rights  of  Personal 
Liberty.  In  conformity  with  this  principle,  the  Legis- 
lature of  Massachusetts,  by  formal  resolution,  in  1850, 
with  singular  unanimity,  declared : 

"  We  hold  it  to  be  the  duty  of  Congress  to  pass  such  laws  only 
in  regard  thereto  as  mil  be  maintained  by  the  sentiments  of  the 
Free  States,  where  such  lavs  are  to  be  enforced." 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.      155 

The  duty  of  consulting  these  sentiments  was  recog- 
nized by  Washington.  While  President  of  the  United 
States,  at  the  close  of  his  Administration,  he  sought 
to  recover  a  slave  who  had  fled  to  New  Hampshire. 
His  autograph  letter  to  Mr.  Whipple,  the  Collector  at 
Portsmouth,  dated  at  Philadelphia,  28th  November, 
1796,  which  I  now  hold  in  my  hand,  and  which  has 
never  before  seen  the  light,  after  describing  the  fugi- 
tive, and  particularly  expressing  the  desire  of  "  her 
mistress,"  Mrs.  Washington,  for  her  return,  employs 
the  following  decisive  language  : 

"  I  do  not  mean,  however,  by  this  request,  that  such  violent 
measures  should  be  used  AS  WOULD  EXCITE  A  MOB  OR  RIOT,  WHICH 

MIGHT  BE  THE  CASE  IF  SHE  HAS  ADHERENTS,  OR  EVEN  UNEASY  SEN- 
SATIONS IN  THE  MINDS  OF  WELL-DISPOSED  CITIZENS.  Rather  than 
either  of  these  should  happen,  I  would  forego  her  services  alto- 
gether ;  and  the  example,  also,  which  is  of  infinite  more  impor- 
tance. 

"  GEORGE  WASHINGTON." 

Mr.  Whipple,  in  his  reply,  dated  at  Portsmouth, 
December  22,  1796,  an  autograph  copy  of  which  I 
have,  recognizes  the  rule  of  Washington  : 

"  I  will  now,  sir,  agreeably  to  your  desire,  send  her  to  Alex- 
andria, if  it  be  practicable  without  the  consequences  which  you 
except  —  that  of  exciting  a  riot  or  a  mob,  or  creating  uneasy 
sensations  in  the  minds  of  well-disposed  persons.  The  first  can- 
not be  calculated  beforehand  ;  it  will  be  governed  by  the  popular 
opinion  of  the  moment,  or  the  circumstances  that  may  arise  in 
the  transaction.  The  latter  may  be  sought  into  and  judged  of 
by  conversing  with  such  persons  without  discovering  the  occa- 
sion. So  far  as  I  have  had  opportunity,  I  perceive  that  different 
sentiments  are  entertained  on  this  subject." 

The  fugitive  never  was  returned  ;  but  lived  in  free- 
dom to  a  good  old  age,  down  to  a  very  recent  period, 


156      FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

a  monument  of  the  just  forbearance  of  him  whom  we 
aptly  call  the  Father  of  his  Country.  It  is  true  that 
he  sought  her  return.  This  we  must  regret,  and  find 
its  apology.  He  was  at  the  time  a  slaveholder.  Though 
often  with  various  degrees  of  force  expressing  himself 
against  slavery,  and  promising  his  suffrage  for  its  aboli- 
tion, he  did  not  see  this  wrong  as  he  saw  it  at  the  close 
of  life,  in  the  illumination  of  another  sphere.  From 
this  act  of  Washington,  still  swayed  by  the  policy  of 
the  world,  I  appeal  to  Washington  writing  his  will. 
From  Washington  on  earth  I  appeal  to  Washington  in 
Heaven.  Seek  not  by  his  name  to  justify  any  such 
effort.  His  death  is  above  his  life.  His  last  testa- 
ment cancels  his  authority  as  a  slaveholder.  However 
he  may  have  appeared  before  man,  he  came  into  the 
presence  of  God  only  as  the  liberator  of  his  slaves. 
Grateful  for  this  example,  I  am  grateful  also  that, 
while  a  slaveholder,  and  seeking  the  return  of  a  fugi- 
tive, he  has  left  in  permanent  record  a  rule  of  conduct 
which,  if  adopted  by  his  country,  will  make  Slave- 
Hunting  impossible.  The  chances  of  a  riot,  or  mob, 
or  "  even  uneasy  sensations  among  well-disposed  per- 
sons," are  to  prevent  any  such  pursuit. 

Sir,  the  existing  Slave  Act  cannot  be  enforced  with- 
out violating  the  precept  of  Washington.  Not  merely 
"  uneasy  sensations  of  well-disposed  persons,"  but 
rage,  tumult,  commotion,  mob,  riot,  violence,  death, 
gush  from  its  fatal  overflowing  fountains ; 

Hoc  fonte  derivata  clades 
In  patriam  populumque  fiuxit.* 

Not   a  case   occurs  without   endangering  the   public 
*  Horace,  Carmina,  Lib.  III.  6. 


FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL.    157 

peace.  "Workmen  are  brutally  dragged  from,  employ- 
ments to  which  they  are  wedded  by  years  of  successful 
labor  ;  husbands  are  ravished  from  wives,  and  parents 
from,  children.  Everywhere  there  is  disturbance ;  at 
Detroit,  Buffalo,  Harrisburg,  Syracuse,  Philadelphia, 
New  York,  Boston.  At  Buffalo  the  fugitive  was 
cruelly  knocked  by  a  log  of  wood  against  a  red-hot 
stove,  and  his  mock  trial  commenced  while  the  blood 
still  oozed  from  his  wounded  head.  At  Syracuse  he 
was  rescued  by  a  sudden  mob  ;  so  also  at  Boston.  At 
Harrisburg  the  fugitive  was  shot ;  at  Christiana  the 
Slave-Hunter  was  shot.  At  New  York  unprecedented 
excitement,  always  with  uncertain  consequences,  has 
attended  every  case.  Again  at  Boston  a  fugitive,  ac- 
cording to  the  received  report,  was  first  basely  seized 
under  pretext  that  he  was  a  criminal ;  arrested  only 
after  a  deadly  struggle ;  guarded  by  officers  who  acted 
in  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  State  ;  tried  in  a  Court- 
House  surrounded  by  chains  contrary  to  the  common 
law ;  finally  surrendered  to  Slavery  by  trampling  on 
the  criminal  process  of  the  State,  under  an  escort  in 
violation  again  of  the  laws  of  the  State,  while  the 
pulpits  trembled  and  the  whole  people,  not  merely 
"  uneasy,"  but  swelling  with  ill-suppressed  indignation, 
for  the  sake  of  order  and  tranquillity,  without  violence 
witnessed  the  shameful  catastrophe. 

With  every  attempt  to  administer  the  Slave  Act,  it 
constantly  becomes  more  revolting,  particularly  in  its 
influence  on  the  agents  it  enlists.  Pitch  cannot  be 
touched  without  defilement,  and  all  who  lend  them- 
selves to  this  work  seem  dt  once  and  unconsciously  to 
lose  the  better  part  of  man.  The  spirit  of  the  law 
passes  into  them,  as  the  devils  entered  the  swine. 
14 


- 

158      FREEDOM    MATIOIsTAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIOXAl. 

Upstart  commissioners,  the  mere  mushrooms  of  courts, 
vie  and  revie  with  each  other.  Now  by  indecent  speed, 
now  by  harshness  of  manner,  now  by  a  denial  of  evi- 
dence, now  by  crippling  the  defence,  and  now  by  open 
glaring  wrong,  they  make  the  odious  Act  yet  more 
odious.  Clemency,  grace,  and  justice,  die  in  its  pres- 
ence. All  this  is  observed  by  the  world.  Not  a  case 
occurs  which  does  not  harrow  the  souls  of  good  men, 
and  bring  tears  of  sympathy  to  the  eyes,  also  those 
other  noble  tears  which  "  patriots  shed  o'er  dying 
laws." 

Sir,  I  shall  speak  frankly.  If  there  be  an  exception 
to  this  feeling,  it  will  be  found  chiefly  with  a  peculiar 
class.  It  is  a  sorry  fact  that  the  "  mercantile  interest," 
in  its  unpardonable  selfishness,  twice  in  English  his- 
tory, frowned  upon  the  endeavors  to  suppress  the 
atrocity  of  Algerine  Slavery ;  that  it  sought  to  baffle 
Wilberforce's  great  effort  for  the  abolition  of  the 
African  slave  trade ;  and  that,  by  a  sordid  compro- 
mise, at  the  formation  of  our  Constitution,  it  exempted 
the  same  detested  Heaven-defying  traffic  from  Amer- 
ican judgment.  And  now  representatives  of  this 
"  interest,"  forgetful  that  commerce  is  the  child  of 
Freedom,  join  in  hunting  the  Slave.  But  the  great 
heart  of  the  people  recoils  from  this  enactment.  It 
palpitates  for  the  fugitive,  and  rejoices  in  his  escape. 
Sir,  I  am  telling  you  facts.  The  literature  of  the  age 
is  all  on  his  side.  The  songs,  more  potent  than  laws, 
are  for  him.  The  poets,  with  voices  of  melody,  are  for 
Freedom.  Who  could  sing  for  Slavery  ?  They  who 
make  the  permanent  opinion  of  the  country,  who  mould 
our  youth,  whose  words,  dropped  into  the  soul,  are  the 
germs  of  character,  supplicate  for  the  Slave.  And 


FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL.    159 

now,  sir,  behold  a  new  and  heavenly  ally.  A  woman, 
inspired  by  Christian  genius,  enters  the  lists,  like  an- 
other Joan  of  Arc,  and  with  marvellous  power,  sweeps 
the  chords  of  the  popular  heart.  Now  melting  to 
tears,  and  now  inspiring  to  rage,  her  work  everywhere 
touches  the  conscience,  and  makes  the  Slave-Hunter 
more  hateful.  In  a  brief  period,  nearly  100,000  copies 
of  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  have  been  already  circulated.* 
But  this  extraordinary  and  sudden  success  —  surpass- 
ing all  other  instances  in  the  records  of  literature  — 
cannot  be  regarded  merely  as  the  triumph  of  genius. 
Higher  far  than  this,  it  is  the  testimony  of  the  people, 
by  an  unprecedented  act,  against  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Bill. 

These  things  I  dwell  upon  as  the  incentives  and 
tokens  of  an  existing  public  sentiment,  which  renders 
this  Act  practically  inoperative,  except  as  a  tremendous 
engine  of  terror.  Sir,  the  sentiment  is  just.  Even  in 
tha  lands  of  slavery,  the  slave-trader  is  loathed  as  an 
ignoble  character,  from  whom  the  countenance  is 
turned  away  ;  and  can  the  Slave-Hunter  be  more  re- 
garded while  pursuing  his  prey  in  a  land  of  Freedom  ? 
In  early  Europe,  in  barbarous  days,  while  Slavery 
prevailed,  a  Hunting  Master,  nach  jagender  Herr,  as 
the  Germans  called  him,  was  held  in  aversion.  Nor 
was  this  all.  The  fugitive  was  welcomed  in  the  cities, 
and  protected  against  pursuit.  Sometimes  vengeance 
awaited  the  Hunter.  Down  to  this  day,  at  Revel,  now 
a  Russian  city,  a  sword  is  proudly  preserved  with 
which  a  Hunting  Baron  was  beheaded,  who, -in  viola- 

*  This  was  the  number  at  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  this 
speech.  But  the  circulation  has  gone  on  indefinitely. 


160     FKEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

tion  of  the  municipal  rights  of  this  place,  seized  a  fugi- 
tive slave.  Hostile  to  this  Act  as  our  public  sentiment 
may  be,  it  exhibits  no  trophy  like  this.  The  State 
laws  of  Massachusetts  have  been  violated  in  the  seizure 
of  a  fugitive  slave  ;  but  no  sword,  like  that  of  Revel, 
now  hangs  at  Boston. 

I  have  said,  sir,  that  this  sentiment  is  just.  And  is 
it  not  ?  Every  escape  from  slavery  necessarily  and  in- 
stinctively awakens  the  regard  of  all  who  love  Freedom. 
The  endeavor,  though  unsuccessful,  reveals  courage, 
manhood,  character.  No  story  is  read  with  more  in- 
terest than  that  of  our  own  Lafayette,  when,  aided  by 
a  gallant  South  Carolinian,  in  defiance  of  the  despotic 
ordinances  of  Austria,  kindred  to  our  Slave  Act,  he 
strove  to  escape  from  the  bondage  of  Olmutz.  Litera- 
ture pauses  with  exultation  over  the  struggles  of  Cer- 
vantes, the  great  Spaniard,  while  a  slave  in  Algiers,  to 
regain  the  liberty  for  which  he  says,  in  his  immortal 
work,  "  we  ought  to  risk  life  itself,  Slavery  being  the 
greatest  evil  that  can  fall  to  the  lot  of  man."  Science, 
in  all  her  manifold  triumphs,  throbs  with  pride  and 
delight,  that  Arago,  the  astronomer  and  philosopher  — 
devoted  republican  also  —  was  redeemed  from  bar- 
barous Slavery  to  become  one  of  her  greatest  sons. 
Religion  rejoices  serenely,  with  joy  unspeakable,  in  the 
final  escape  of  Vincent  de  Paul.  Exposed  in  the  public 
squares  of  Tunis  to  the  inspection  of  the  traffickers 
in  human  flesh,  this  illustrious  Frenchman  was  sub- 
jected to  every  vileness  of  treatment  compelled,  like  a 
horse,  to'  open  his  mouth,  to  show  his  teeth,  to  trot,  to 
run,  to  exhibit  his  strength  in  lifting  burthens,  and 
then,  like  a  horse,  legally  sold  in  market  overt.  Pass- 
ing from  master  to  master,  after  a  protracted  servitude, 


FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL.     161 

he  achieved  his  freedom,  and  regaining  France,  com- 
menced that  resplendent  career  of  charity  by  which  he 
is  placed  among  the  great  names  of  Christendom. 
Princes  and  orators  have  lavished  panegyrics  upon  this 
fugitive  slave ;  and  the  Catholic  Church,  in  homage  to 
his  extraordinary  virtues,  has  introduced  him  into  the 
company  of  saints. 

Less  by  genius  or  eminent  services,  than  by  suffer- 
ings, are  the  fugitive  slaves  of  our  country  now  com- 
mended. For  them  every  sentiment  of  humanity  is 
aroused  : 

"  Who  could  refrain 


That  had  a  heart  to  love,  and  in  that  heart 
Courage  to  make  his  love  known  ?  " 

Rude  and  ignorant  they  may  be  ;  but  in  their  very 
efforts  for  Freedom,  they  claim  kindred  with  all  that 
is  noble  in  the  Past.  They  are  among  the  heroes  of 
our  age.  Romance  has  no  stories  of  more  thrilling 
interest  than  theirs.  Classical  antiquity  has  preserved 
no  examples  of  adventurous  trial  more  worthy  of  re- 
nown. Among  them  are  men  whose  names  will  be 
treasured  in  the  annals  of  their  race.  By  their  eloquent 
voice  they  have  already  done  much  to  make  their 
Avrongs  known,  and  to  secure  the  respect  of  the  world. 
History  will  soon  lend  them  her  avenging  pen.  Pro- 
scribed by  you  during  life,  they  will  proscribe  you 
through  all  time.  Sir,  already  judgment  is  beginning. 
A  righteous  public  sentiment  palsies  your  enactment. 

And  now,  sir,  let  us  review  the  field  over  which  we 
have  passed.     We  have   seen  that   any  compromise, 
finally  closing  the  discussion  of  Slavery  under  the  Con- 
14* 


162    FKEEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAYEBY  SECTIONAL. 

stitution,  is  tyrannical,  absurd  and  impotent ;  that  as 
Slavery  can  exist  only  by  virtue  of  positive  law,  and 
as  it  has  no  such  positive  support  in  the  Constitution, 
it  cannot  exist  within  the  National  jurisdiction ;  that 
the  Constitution  nowhere  recognizes  property  in  man, 
and  that,  according  to  its  true  interpretation,  Freedom 
and  not  Slavery  is  national,  while  Slavery  and  not 
Freedom  is  sectional ;  that,  in  this  spirit,  the  National 
Government  was  first  organized  under  Washington, 
himself  an  Abolitionist,  surrounded  by  Abolitionists, 
while  the  whole  country,  by  its  Church,  its  Colleges, 
its  Literature,  and  all  its  best  voices,  was  united 
against  Slavery,  and  the  national  flag  at  that  time 
nowhere  within  the  National  Territory  covered  a  single 
slave ;  still  further,  that  the  National  Government  is  a 
Government  of  delegated  powers,  and  as  among  these 
there  is  no  power  to  support  Slavery,  this  institution 
cannot  be  national,  nor  can  Congress  in  any  way  legis- 
late in  its  behalf ;  and,  finally,  that  the  establishment 
of  this  principle  is  the  true  way  of  peace  and  safety  for 
the  Republic.  Considering  next  the  provision  for  the 
surrender  of  fugitives  from  service,  we  have  seen  that 
it  was  not  one  of  the  original  compromises  of  the  Con- 
stitution ;  that  it  was  introduced  tardily  and  with  hesi- 
tation, and  adopted  with  little  discussion,  and  then 
and  for  a  long  period  after  was  regarded  with  compar- 
ative indiiference  ;  that  the  recent  Slave  Act,  though 
many  times  unconstitutional,  is  especially  so  on  two 
grounds  — Jirst ,  as  a  usurpation  by  Congress  of  powers 
not  granted  by  the  Constitution,  and  an  infraction  of 
rights  secured  to  the  States  ;  and  secondly,  as  a  denial 
of  Trial  by  Jury,  in  a  question  of  Personal  Liberty 
and  a  suit  at  common  law  ;  that  its  glaring  unconstitu- 


FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL.    163 

tionality  finds  a  prototype  in  the  British  Stamp  Act, 
which  our  fathers  refused  to  obey  as  unconstitutional 
on  two  parallel  grounds  — first,  because  it  was  a  usur- 
pation by  Parliament  of  powers  not  belonging  to  it 
under  the  British  Constitution,  and  an  infraction  of 
rights  belonging  to  the  Colonies  ;  and  secondly,  because 
it  was  a  denial  of  Trial  by  Jury  in  certain  cases  of 
property  ;  that  as  Liberty  is  far  above  property,  so  is 
the  outrage  perpetrated  by  the  American  Congress  far 
above  that  perpetrated  by  the  British  Parliament ;  and, 
finally,  that  the  Slave  Act  has  not  that  support  in  the 
public  sentiment  of  the  States  where  it  is  to  be  exe- 
cuted, which  is  the  life  of  all  law,  and  which  prudence 
and  the  precept  of  Washington  require. 

Sir,  thus  far  I  have  arrayed  the  objections  to  this 
Act,  and  the  false  interpretations  out  of  which  it  has 
sprung.  But  I  am  asked  what  I  offer  as  a  substitute 
for  the  legislation  which  I  denounce.  Freely  I  will 
answer.  It  is  to  be  found  in  a  correct  appreciation  of 
the  provision  of  the  Constitution,  under  which  this  dis- 
cussion occurs.  Look  at  it  in  the  double  light  of 
reason  and  of  Freedom,  and  we  cannot  mistake  the 
exact  extent  of  its  requirements.  Here  is  the  pro- 
vision : 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the 
laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any 
law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or 
labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom 
such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." 

From  the  very  language  employed,  it  is  obvious  that 
this  is  merely  a  compact  between  the  States,  with  a 
prohibition  on  the  States,  conferring  no  power  on  the 


164     FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  J     SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

nation.  In  its  natural  signification  it  is  a  compact. 
According  to  the  examples  of  other  countries,  and 
the  principles  of  jurisprudence,  it  is  a  compact.  All 
arrangements  for  the  extradition  of  fugitives  have  been 
customarily  compacts.  Except  under  the  express  obli- 
gations of  treaty,  no  nation  is  bound  to  surrender 
fugitives.  Especially  has  this  been  the  case  with 
fugitives  for  Freedom.  In  mediaeval  Europe,  cities 
refused  to  recognize  this  obligation  in  favor  of  persons 
even  under  the  same  National  Government.  In  1531, 
while  the  Netherlands  and  Spain  were  united  under 
Charles  V.,  the  Supreme  Council  of  Mechlin  rejected  an 
application  from  Spain  for  the  surrender  of  a  fugitive 
slave.  By  express  compact  alone  could  this  be  secured. 
But  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  was  borrowed 
from  the  Ordinance  of  the  Northwestern  Territory, 
which  is  expressly  declared  to  be  a  compact;  and  this 
Ordinance,  finally  drawn  by  Nathan  Dane,  was  again 
borrowed  in  its  distinctive  features  from  the  early 
institutions  of  Massachusetts,  among  which,  as  far 
back  as  1643,  was  a  compact  of  like  nature  with  other 
New  England  States.  Thus  this  provision  is  a  com- 
pact in  language,  in  nature,  in  its  whole  history ;  as 
we  have  already  seen  it  is  a  compact,  according  to 
the  intentions  of  our  Fathers  and  the  genius  of  our 
institutions. 

As  a  compact,  its  execution  depends  absolutely  upon 
the  States,  without  any  intervention  of  the  Nation. 
Each  State,  in  the  exercise  of  its  own  judgment,  will 
determine  for  itself  the  precise  extent  of  the  obligations 
assumed.  As  a  compact  in  derogation  of  Freedom,  it 
must  be  construed  strictly  in  every  respect  —  leaning 
always  in  favor  of  Freedom,  and  shunning  any  mean- 


FBEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     165 

ing,  not  clearly  necessary,  which  takes  away  important 
personal  rights  ;  mindful  that  the  parties  to  whom  it  is 
applicable  are  regarded  as  "  persons,"  of  course  with 
all  the  rights  of  "  persons "  under  the  Constitution ; 
especially  mindful  of  the  vigorous  maxim  of  the  com- 
mon law,  that  "he  is  cruel  and  impious  who  does  not 
always  favor  Freedom ;  "  and  also,  completely  adopting 
in  letter  and  in  spirit,  as  becomes  a  just  people,  the 
rule  of  the  great  Commentator,  that  "  the  law  is 
always  ready  to  catch  at  anything  in  favor  of  Lib- 
erty." With  this  key  the  true  interpretation  is  natural 
and  easy. 

Briefly,  the  States  are  prohibited  from  any  "  law  or 
regulation"  by  which  any  "person"  escaped  from 
"service  or  labor"  may  be  discharged  therefrom,  and 
on  establishment  of  the  claim  to  such  "  service  or 
labor,"  he  is  to  be  "  delivered  up."  But  the  mode  by 
which  the  claim  is  to  be  tried  and  determined  is  not 
specified.  All  this  is  obviously  within  the  control  of 
each  State.  It  may  be  done  by  virtue  of  express 
legislation,  in  which  event  any  Legislature,  justly  care- 
ful of  Personal  Liberty,  would  surround  the  fugitive 
with  every  shield  of  the  law  and  Constitution.  But 
here  a  fact,  pregnant  with  Freedom,  must  be  studiously 
observed.  The  name  Slave  —  that  litany  of  wrong 
and  woe  —  does  not  appear  in  the  clause.  Here  is  no 
unambiguous  phrase,  incapable  of  a  double  sense ;  no 
"  positive "  language,  applicable  only  to  slaves,  and 
excluding  all  other  classes ;  no  word  of  that  absolute 
certainty  in  every  particular,  which  forbids  any  inter- 
pretation except  that  of  Slavery,  and  makes  it  impossi- 
ble "  to  catch  at  anything  in  favor  of  Liberty."  Nothing 
of  this  kind  is  here.  But  passing  from  this ;  "  cruelly 


166     FEEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVEEY    SECTIONAL. 

and  impiously"  renouncing  for  the  moment  all  leanings 
for  Freedom ;  refusing  "  to  catch  at  anything  in  favor  of 
Liberty ;  "  abandoning  the  cherished  idea  of  the  Fathers, 
that  "  It  was  wrong  to  admit  in  the  Constitution  the 
idea  of  property  in  man ;  "  and,  in  the  face  of  these  com- 
manding principles,  assuming  two  things,  first,  that,  in 
the  evasive  language  of  this  clause,  the  Convention, 
whatever  may  have  been  the  aim  of  individual  mem- 
bers, really  intended  fugitive  slaves,  which  is  sometimes 
questioned,  and,  secondly,  that,  if  they  so  intended, 
the  language  employed  can  be  judicially  regarded  as 
justly  applicable  to  fugitive  slaves,  which  is  often  and 
earnestly  denied ;  then  the  whole  proceeding,  without 
any  express  legislation,  may  be  left  to  the  ancient  and 
authentic  forms  of  the  common  law,  familiar  to  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  and  ample  for  the  occasion. 
If  the  fugitive  be  seized  without  process,  he  will  be 
entitled  at  once  to  his  writ  de  Homine  Replegiando, 
while  the  master,  resorting  to  process,  may  find  his 
remedy  in  the  writ  de  Nativo  Habendo  —  each  writ 
requiring  Trial  by  Jury.  If,  from  ignorance  or  lack  of 
employment,  these  processes  have  slumbered  in  our 
country,  still  they  belong  to  the  great  arsenal  of  the 
common  law,  and  continue,  like  other  ancient  writs, 
tanquam  gladium  in  vagina,  ready  to  be  employed  at 
the  first  necessity.  They  belong  to  the  safeguards  of 
the  citizen.  But  in  any  event  and  in  either  alternative 
the  proceedings  would  be  by  "  suit  at  common  law," 
with  Trial  by  Jury  ;  and  it  would  be  the  solemn  duty 
of  the  court,  according  to  all  the  forms  and  proper 
delays  of  the  common  law,  to  try  the  case  on  the 
evidence ;  strictly  to  apply  all  the  protecting  rules  of 
evidence,  and  especially  to  require  stringent  proof,  by 


FREEDOM  NATIONAL;  SLAVERY  SECTIONAL.    167 

competent  witnesses  under  cross-examination,  that  the 
person  claimed  was  held  to  service ;  that  his  service 
Avas  due  to  the  claimant ;  that  he  had  escaped  from  the 
State  where  such  service  was  due ;  and  also  proof  of 
the  laws  of  the  State  under  which  he  was  held.  Still 
further,  to  the  Courts  of  each  State  must  belong  the 
determination  of  the  question,  to  what  classes  of  persons, 
according  to  just  rules  of  interpretation,  the  phrase 
"persons  held  to  service  or  labor"  is  strictly  appli- 
cable. 

Such  is  this  much- debated  provision.  The  Slave 
States,  at  the  formation  of  the  Constitution,  did  not 
propose,  as  in  the  cases  of  Naturalization  and  Bank- 
ruptcy, to  empower  the  National  Government  to  estab- 
lish an  uniform  rule  for  the  rendition  of  fugitives  from 
service,  throughout  the  United  States  ;  they  did  not  ask 
the  National  Government  to  charge  itself  in  any  way 
with  this  service ;  they  did  not  venture  to  offend  the 
country,  and  particularly  the  Northern  States,  by  any 
such  assertion  of  a  hateful  right.  They  were  content, 
under  the  sanctions  of  compact,  to  leave  it  to  the  pub- 
lic sentiment  of  the  States.  There,  I  insist,  it  shall 
remain. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  occupied  much  time ;  but  the 
great  subject  still  stretches  before  us.  One  other  point 
yet  remains,  which  I  should  not  leave  untouched,  and 
which  justly  belongs  to  the  close.  The  Slave  Act 
violates  the  Constitution  and  shocks  the  Public  Con- 
science. With  modesty  and  yet  with  firmness  let  me 
add,  sir,  it  offends  against  the  Divine  Law.  No  such 
enactment  can  be  entitled  to  support.  As  the  throne 
of  God  is  above  every  earthly  throne,  so  are  his  laws 


168     FfiEEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL. 

and  statutes  above  all  the  laws  and  statutes  of  man. 
To  question  these,  is  to  question  God  himself.  But  to 
assume  that  human  laws  are  beyond  question,  is  to 
claim  for  their  fallible  authors  infallibility.  To  assume 
that  they  are  always  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  God, 
is  presumptuously  and  impiously  to  exalt  man  to  an 
equality  with  God.  Clearly  human  laws  are  not  always 
in  such  conformity ;  nor  can  they  ever  be  beyond 
question  from  each  individual.  Where  the  conflict  is 
open,  as  if  Congress  should  command  the  perpetration 
of  murder,  the  office  of  conscience  as  final  arbiter  is 
undisputed.  But  in  every  conflict  the  same  Queenly 
office  is  hers.  By  no  earthly  power  can  she  be  de- 
throned. Each  person,  after  anxious  examination, 
without  haste,  without  passion,  solemnly  for  himself 
must  decide  this  great  controversy.  Any  other  rule 
attributes  infallibility  to  human  laws,  places  them 
beyond  question,  and  degrades  all  men  to  an  unthink- 
ing passive  obedience. 

According  to  St.  Augustine,  an  unjust  law  does  not 
appear  to  be  a  law ;  lex  esse  non  videtur  qua  justa  non 
fuerit ;  and  the  great  fathers  of  the  Church,  while 
adopting  these  words,  declare  openly  that  unjust  laws 
are  not  binding.  Sometimes  they  are  called  "abuses," 
and  not  laws;  sometimes  "violences,"  and  not  laws. 
And  here  again  the  conscience  of  each  person  is  the 
final  arbiter.  But  this  lofty  principle  is  not  confined 
to  the  Church.  A  master  of  philosophy  in  early 
Europe,  a  name  of  intellectual  renown,  the  eloquent 
Abelard,  in  Latin  verses  addressed  to  his  son,  has 
clearly  expressed  the  universal  injunction  : 

"  Jussa  potestatis  terrenae  discutienda 
Ccelestis  tibi  mox  perficienda  Bcias. 


FBPEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     169 

Siquis  divinis  jubeat  contraria  jussis 
Te  contra  Dominum  pactio  nulla  trahat." 

The  mandates  of  an  earthly  power  are  to  be  discussed ; 
those  of  Heaven  must  at  once  be  performed ;  nor  can 
any  agreement  constrain  us  against  God.  Such  is  the 
rule  of  morals.  Such,  also,  by  the  lips  of  judges  and 
sages,  has  been  the  proud  declaration  of  the  English 
law,  whence  our  own  is  derived.  In  this  conviction 
patriots  have  fearlessly  braved  unjust  commands,  and 
martyrs  have  died. 

And  now,  sir,  the  rule  is  commended  to  us.  The 
good  citizen,  as  he  thinks  of  the  shivering  fugitive, — 
guilty  of  no  crime,  —  pursued, — hunted  down  like  a 
beast,  while  praying  for  Christian  help  and  deliverance, 
and  as  he  reads  the  requirements  of  this  Act,  is  filled 
with  horror.  Here  is  a  despotic  mandate,  "  to  aid  and 
assist  in  the  prompt  and  efficient  execution  of  this 
law."  Again  let  me  speak  frankly.  Not  rashly  would 
I  set  myself  against  any  provision  of  law.  This  grave 
responsibility  I  would  not  lightly  assume.  But  here 
the  path  of  duty  is  clear.  By  the  Supreme  Law,  which 
commands  me  to  do  no  injustice ;  by  the  comprehen- 
sive Christian  Law  of  Brotherhood ;  by  the  Constitution, 
which  I  have  sworn  to  support ;  I  AM  BOUND  TO  DIS- 
OBEY THIS  ACT.  Never,  in  any  capacity,  can  I  render 
voluntary  aid  in  its  execution.  Pains  and  penalties  I 
will  endure  ;  but  this  great  wrong  I  will  not  do.  "  I 
cannot  obey ;  but  I  can  suffer,"  was  the  exclamation 
of  the  author  of  Pilgrim's  Progress,  when  imprisoned 
for  disobedience  to  an  earthly  statute.  Better  suffer 
injustice  than,  do  it.  Better  be  the  victim  than  the 
instrument  of  wrong.  Better  be  even  the  poor  slave, 
15 


170     TBEEDOM    NATIONAL;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAIi. 

returned  to  bondage,  than  the  unhappy  Commis- 
sioner. 

There  is,  sir,  an  incident  of  history,  which  suggests 
a  parallel,  and  affords  a  lesson  of  fidelity.  Under 
the  triumphant  exertions  of  that  Apostolic  Jesuit, 
St.  Francis  Xavier,  large  numbers  of  the  Japanese, 
amounting  to  as  many  as  two  hundred  thousand  — 
among  them  princes,  generals,  and  the  flower  of  the 
nobility  —  were  converted  to  Christianity.  Afterwards, 
amidst  the  frenzy  of  civil  war,  religious  persecution 
arose,  and  the  penalty  of  death  was  denounced  against 
all  who  refused  to  trample  upon  the  effigy  of  the 
Redeemer.  This  was  the  Pagan  law  of  a  Pagan  land. 
But  the  delighted  historian  records  that  scarcely  one 
from  the  multitude  of  converts  was  guilty  of  this 
apostacy.  The  law  of  man  was  set  at  naught.  Im- 
prisonment, torture,  death,  were  preferred.  Thus  did 
this  people  refuse  to  trample  on  the  painted  image. 
Sir,  multitudes  among  us  will  not  be  less  steadfast 
in  refusing  to  trample  on  the  living  image  of  their 
Redeemer. 

Finally,  sir,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  tranquillity, 
cease  to  shock  the  Public  Conscience;  for  the  sake  of 
the  Constitution,  cease  to  exercise  a  power  which  is 
nowhere  granted,  and  which  violates  inviolable  rights 
expressly  secured.  Leave  this  question  where  it  was 
left  by  our  fathers,  at  the  formation  of  our  National 
Government,  in  the  absolute  control  of  the  States,  the 
appointed  guardians  of  Personal  Liberty.  Repeal  this 
enactment.  Let  its  terrors  no  longer  rage  through 
the  land.  Mindful  of  the  lowly  whom  it  pursues  ; 
mindful  of  the  good  men  perplexed  by  its  require- 
ments ;  in  the  name  of  charity,  in  the  name  of  the 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL  ;    SLAVERY    SECTIONAL.     171 

Constitution,  repeal  this  enactment,  totally  and  without 
delay.  Be  inspired  by  the  example  of  Washington. 
Be  admonished  by  those  words  of  Oriental  piety  — 
"  Beware  of  the  groans  of  the  wounded  souls.  Oppress 
not  to  the  utmost  a  single  heart ;  for  a  solitary  sigh 
has  power  to  overset  a  whole  world." 


TRIBUTE   TO   MR.   DOWNING. 

BPKECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  26lH  AUGUST,  1852, 
IN  FAVOE  OF  AN  ALLOWANCE  TO  THE  WIDOW  OF  THE  LATE 
ANDREW  J.  DOWNING. 


The  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Appropriation  Bill  being  under  con- 
sideration, Mr.  Pearce,  of  Maryland,  under  instructions  from 
the  Committee  on  Finance,  moved  the  following  amendment : 

"  For  the  payment  of  the  arrears  of  salary  due  to  the  late 
Rural  Architect,  A.  J.  Downing,  from  the  first  of  May,  1852,  to 
the  date  of  his  death,  and  a  further  allowance  to  his  widow, 
equal  to  the  salary  for  one  year,  $2,500  ;  Provided,  that  the 
said  sum  shall  be  in  full  of  all  claim  for  the  services  of  the  said 
deceased,  and  for  all  models,  specifications  and  drawings  de- 
signed for  the  benefit  of  the  United  States,  which  are  not  in  its 
possession." 

In  the  course  of  the  debate  which  ensued,  Mr.  Sumner  spoke 
as  follows  : 

Ms.  SUMNEK.  —  Mr.  President :  The  laborer  is 
worthy  of  his  hire  ;  and  I  believe  at  this  moment  there 
is  no  question  of  charity  to  the  widow  of  the  late  Mr. 
Downing.  The  simple  proposition  is  to  make  com- 
pensation for  services  rendered  to  the  United  States  by 
this  eminent  artist  as  superintendent  of  the  public 
grounds  in  Washington.  And,  since  the  plans  he  has 
left  behind  and  the  impulses  he  has  given  to  improve- 
ments here  by  his  incomparable  genius  will  continue  to 

(172)    . 


TRIBUTE    TO    MR.    DOWNING.  173 

benefit  us,  though  he  has  been  removed,  it  is  thought 
reasonable  to  continue  his  salary  to  the  close  of  the 
unexpired  year  from  which  it  commenced.  These  plans 
alone  have  been  valued  at  five  thousand  dollars,  and 
we  are  to  have  the  advantage  of  them.  In  pursuance 
of  these,  his  successor  will  be  able  to  proceed  in  ar- 
ranging the  public  grounds,  and  in  embellishing  the 
national  capital,  without  any  further  expenditure  to 
procure  others  instead.  Thus,  as  I  said  at  the  outset, 
it  is  i^pt  a  question  of  charity,  but  of  compensation ; 
and  on  this  ground  I  submit  that  the  estate  of  the 
departed  artist  deserves  the  small  pittance  which  it  is 
proposed  to  supply.  For  myself,  I  should  be  much 
happier  to  vote  for  a  larger  appropriation,  believing 
that,  over  and  above  the  services  actually  rendered  in 
the  discharge  of  his  duties,  these  plans  are  amply 
worth  it,  and  that  we  shall  all  feel  better  by  such  a 
recognition  of  our  debt. 

Few  men  in  the  public  service  have  vindicated  a 
title  to  regard  above  Mr.  Downing.  At  the  age  of 
thirty-seven  he  has  passed  away,  "  dead  ere  his  prime" 
—  like  Lycidas,  also,  "  stretched  on  a  watery  bier  "  — 
leaving  behind  a  reputation  above  that  of  any  other 
citizen  in  the  beautiful  department  of  art  to  which  he 
was  devoted.  His  labors  and  his  example  cannot  be 
forgotten.  I  know  of  no  man  among  us,  in  any  sphere 
of  life,  so  young  as  he  was  at  his  death,  who  has  been 
able  to  perform  services  of  such  true,  simple  and  last- 
ing beneficence.  By  his  wide  and  active  superintend- 
ence of  rural  improvements,  by  his  labors  of  the  pen, 
and  by  the  various  exercise  of  his  genius,  he  has 
contributed  essentially  to  the  sum  of  human  happiness. 
And  now,  sir,  by  practical  services  here  in  Washington, 
15* 


174  TBIBtTTE    TO    MK.    DOWNING. 

rendered  at  the  call  of  his  country,  he  has  earned,  it 
seems  to  me,  this  small  appropriation  —  not  as  a 
charity  to  his  desolate  widow,  but  as  a  compensation 
for  labor  done.  I  hope  the  amendment  will  be  agreed 
to. 


THE  PARTY  OF  FREEDOM;  ITS  NECESSITY  AND 
PRACTICABILITY. 

SPEECH    AT   THE   STATE    CONVENTION    OF    THE   FREE   SOIL   PARTY   0? 
MASSACHUSETTS,   HELD   AT   LOWELL,    16lH  SEPTEMBER,    1852. 


The  President  [Hon.  STEPHEN  C.  PHILLIPS]  remarked  that 
there  was  one  gentleman  present  whom  the  Convention  would 
all  delight  to  hear  ;  he  alluded  to  our  distinguished  Senator  in 
Congress,  Hon.  Charles  Sumner. 

The  name  of  Mr.  Sumner  was  received  with  "  three  times 
three  "  rousing  cheers,  and  the  waving  of  hats,  canes,  handker- 
chiefs, &c.,  which  demonstrations  of  regard  were  renewed  as  he 
made  his  appearance  on  the  platform.  The  enthusiasm  having 
in  a  degree  subsided,  he  stepped  forward  and  said  :  * 

MR.  PRESIDENT  AND  FEUOW-CITIZENS  OF  MASS- 
ACHUSETTS :  —  I  should  be  dull  indeed  —  dull  as  a 
weed  —  were  I  insensible  to  this  generous,  overflow- 
ing, heart-speaking  welcome.  After  an  absence  of 
many  months,  I  have  now  come  home,  to  breathe  anew 
this  invigorating  Northern  air  (applause),  to  tread 
again  the  free  soil  of  our  native  Massachusetts  (cheers), 
and  to  enjoy  the  sympathy  of  friends  and  fellow- citizens. 
(Renewed  applause.)  But,  while  glad  in  your  greet- 
ings, thus  bounteously  lavished,  I  cannot  accept  them 
for  myself.  I  do  not  deserve  them.  They  belong  to 

*  This  report  is  copied  from  the  newspapers  of  the  time. 

(175) 


176  THE    PARTY    OF    FREEDOM  J 

the  cause  (applause)  which  we  all  have  at  heart,  and 
which  binds  us  together.  (Cheers.) 

Fellow-citizens,  I  have  not  come  here  to-day  to  make 
a  speech.  The  occasion  requires  no  such  effort.  Weary 
with  other  labors,  and  desiring  rest,  I  have  little  now 
to  say,  and  that  little  must  not  be  about  myself.  If, 
at  Washington,  during  a  long  session  of  Congress  — 
my  own  first  experience  of  public  life  —  I  have  been 
able  to  do  anything  which  meets  your  acceptance,  I 
am  happy.  (Cheers.)  I  have  done  nothing  but  my 
duty.  ("  Hear  !  hear  !  ")  Passing  from  this,  and 
taking  advantage  of  the  kind  attention  with  which  you 
honor  me,  let  me  add  one  Avord  in  vindication  of  our 
position  as  a  third  party. 

At  this  moment  we  are  on  the  eve  of  two  important 
elections  ;  one  of  national  officers  and  the  other  of 
State  officers.  A  President  and  Vice  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  members  of  Congress  are  to  be 
chosen ;  also,  Governor  and  Lieutenant  Governor  of 
the  Commonwealth,  and  members  of  the  Legislature. 
And  at  these  elections  we  are  to  cast  our  votes  so  as 
most  to  promote  the  cause  of  Freedom  under  the 
National  Constitution.  (Cheers.)  This  is  our  peculiar 
object,  though  associated  with  it  are  other  aims,  kin- 
dred in  their  humane  and  liberal  character. 

Against  Freedom  both  the  old  parties  are  now 
banded.  Opposed  to  each  other  in  the  contest  for 
power,  they  concur  in  opposing  every  effort  for  the 
establishment  of  Freedom  under  the  National  Consti- 
tution. (Applause.)  Divided  as  parties,  they  are  one 
as  supporters  of  slavery.  On  this  question  we  can 
have  no  sympathy  with  either  ;  but  must  necessarily  be 
against  both.  ("  Hear !  hear  !  ")  They  sustain  slavery 


ITS    NECESSITY    AND    PRACTICABILITY.  177 

in  the  District  of  Columbia ;  we  are  against  it.  They 
sustain  the  coastwise  slave  trade  under  the  National 
Flag;  we  abhor  it.  (Cheers.)  They  sustain  the  policy 
of  silence  on  Slavery  in  the  territories ;  we  urge  the 
voice  of  positive  prohibition.  They  sustain  that  paragon 
of  legislative  monsters  —  unconstitutional,  unchristian 
and  infamous,  —  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill  (sensation) ; 
we  insist  on  its  repeal.  (Great  applause.)  They  con- 
cede to  the  Slave  Power  new  life  and  protection ;  we 
cannot  be  content  except  with  its  total  destruction. 
(Enthusiasm.)  Such,  fellow-citizens,  is  the  difference 
between  us. 

And  now,  if  here  in  Massachusetts,  there  be  any 
persons,  who,  on  grounds  of  policy  or  conscience,  feel 
impelled  to  support  slavery,  let  them  go  and  sink  in 
the  embrace  of  the  old  parties.  (Applause.)  There 
they  belong.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  all  who  are 
sincerely  opposed  to  slavery  —  who  desire  to  act  against 
it  —  who  seek  to  bear  their  testimony  for  Freedom,  — 
who  long  to  carry  into  public  affairs  those  principles 
of  morality  and  Christian  duty  which  are  the  rule 
of  private  life,  —  let  them  come  out  from  both  the 
old  parties,  and  join  us.  (Cheers.)  In  our  third 
party,  with  the  declared  friends  of  Freedom,  they  will 
find  a  place  in  harmony  with  their  aspirations.  (Enthu- 
siasm.) 

But  there  is  one  apology,  which  is  common  to  the 
supporters  of  both  the  old  parties,  and  which  is  often 
in  their  mouths  when  pressed  for  their  inconsistent 
persistence  in  adhering  to  these  parties.  It  is  dog- 
matically asserted  that  there  can  be  but  two  parties ; 
that  a  third  party  is  impossible,  particularly  in  our 
country,  and  that,  therefore,  all  persons,  however  op- 


178  THE    PAETT    OF    FREEDOM  ', 

posed  to  Slavery,  must  be  content  in  one  of  the  old 
parties.  This  assumption,  which  is  without  any  foun- 
dation in  reason,  has  been  so  often  put  forth,  that  it 
has  acquired  a  certain  currency  ;  and  many,  who  reason 
hastily,  or  who  implicitly  follow  others,  have  adopted 
it  as  the  all-sufficient  excuse  for  their  conduct.  Con- 
fessing their  own  opposition  to  slavery,  they  yet  yield 
to  the  domination  of  party,  and  become  dumb.  All 
this  is  wrong  morally,  and,  therefore,  must  be  wrong 
practically. 

Party,  in  its  true  estate,  is  the  natural  expression 
and  agency  of  different  forms  of  opinion  on  important 
public  questions  ;  and  itself  assumes  different  forms 
precisely  according  to  the  prevalence  of  different 
opinions.  Thus  in  the  early  Italian  republics  there 
were  for  a  while  the  factions  of  the  Guelphs  and 
Ghibellins,  supporters  of  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor ; 
also  of  the  Whites  and  the  Blacks,  taking  their  names 
from  the  color  of  their  respective  badges,  and  in  Eng- 
land, the  two  factions  of  the  white  and  red  roses,  in 
which  was  involved  the  succession  to  the  crown.  But 
in  all  these  cases  the  party  came  into  being,  died  out, 
or  changed  with  the  prevailing  sentiment.  If  there  be 
in  a  community  only  two  chief  antagonist  opinions, 
then  there  will  be  but  two  parties,  embodying  these 
opinions.  But  as  other  opinions  practically  prevail 
and  seek  vent,  so  must  parties  change  or  multiply. 
This  is  so  strongly  the  conclusion  of  reason  and  phil- 
osophy, that  it  could  not  be  doubted,  even  if  there 
were  no  examples  of  such  change  and  multiplication. 
But  we  need  only  turn  to  the  recent  history  of  France 
and  England,  the  two  countries  where  opinion  has  had 
the  freest  scope  to  find  such  examples. 


ITS    NECESSITY    AND    PBACTICABILITY.          179 

Thus,  for  instance,  in  France  —  and  I  dwell  on  this 
point  because  I  have  observed  myself,  in  conversa- 
tion, that  it  is  of  practical  importance  —  under  Louis 
Phillippe,  anterior  to  the  late  Republic,  there  was  the 
party  of  Legitimists,  supporters  of  the  old  branch  of 
Bourbons ;  the  party  of  Orleanists,  supporters  of  the 
existing  throne ;  these  two  corresponding  at  the  time 
in  relative  rank  and  power  to  our  Whigs  and  Demo- 
crats. But  besides  these,  there  was  a  third  party,  the 
small  band  of  republicans,  represented  in  the  legislature 
by  a  few  persons  only,  but  strong  in  principles  and 
purposes,  which  in  February,  1848,  prevailed  over 
both  the  others.  (Applause.)  On  the  establishment 
of  the  Republic  the  multiplicity  of  parties  continued 
until,  with  the  freedom  of  opinion  and  the  freedom  of 
the  press,  all  were  equally  overthrown  by  Louis  Napo- 
leon, and  their  place  supplied  by  the  enforced  unity  of 
despotism. 

In  England,  the  most  important  measure  of  recent 
reform,  the  abolition  of  the  laws  imposing  a  protective 
duty  on  corn,  was  carried  only  by  a  third  party. 
Neither  of  the  two  old  parties  could  be  brought  to 
adopt  this  measure  and  press  it  to  a  consummation. 
A  powerful  public  opinion,  thus  thwarted  in  the  regular 
channel,  found  an  outlet  in  another  party,  which  was 
neither  "Whig  nor  Tory,  but  which  was  formed  from  both 
these  parties,  and  wherein  Sir  Robert  Peel,  the  great 
Conservative  leader,  took  his  place,  side  by  side,  in 
honorable  coalition,  with  Mr.  Cohden,  the  great  Liberal 
leader.  ("  Hear  !  hear  !  ")  In  this  way  the  Corn  Laws 
were  finally  overthrown.  The  multiplicity  of  parties 
in  England,  engendered  by  this  contest,  still  continues. 
At  the  general  election  for  the  new  Parliament  which 


180  THE    PARTY    OF    FREEDOM  ; 

has  just  taken  place,  the  strict  lines  of  ancient  parties 
seemed  to  he  effaced,  and  many  were  returned,  not  as 
Whigs  and  Tories,  but  as  Protectionists  and  anti- 
Protectionists. 

Thus,  by  example  in  our  own  day  we  may  confirm 
the  principle  of  political  philosophy,  that  parties  must 
naturally  adapt  themselves  in  character  and  number  to 
the  prevailing  public  opinion. 

Now  at  the  present  time  in  our  country,  there  exists 
a  deep  controlling  conscientious  feeling  against  Slavery. 
(Cheers.)  You  and  I,  sir,  and  all  of  us  confess  it. 
While  recognizing  the  Constitution  we  desire  to  do 
everything  in  our  power  to  relieve  ourselves  of  respon- 
sibility for  this  terrible  wrong.  ("  Yes  !  yes  !  ")  We 
would  vindicate  the  Constitution  and  the  National 
Government  which  it  has  established,  from  all  partici- 
pation in  this  outrage.  (Cheers.)  Both  the  old 
political  parties,  forgetful  of  the  sentiments  of  the 
Fathers  and  of  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  not  only 
refuse  to  be  in  any  degree  the  agents  or  representa- 
tives of  our  convictions,  but  expressly  discourage  and 
denounce  them.  Thus  baffled  in  their  efforts  for  utter- 
ance, these  convictions  naturally  seek  expression  in  a 
new  agency,  the  party  of  Freedom.  (Cheers.)  Such 
is  the  party,  which,  representing  the  great  doctrines  of 
Human  Rights,  as  enunciated  in  our  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  inspired  truly  by  the  Democratic 
sentiment,  is  now  assembled  here  under  the  name  of 
the  Free  Democracy.  (Cheers.) 

The  rising  public  opinion  against  Slavery  cannot 
now  flow  in  the  old  political  channels.  It  is  strangled, 
clogged,  and  dammed  back.  But  if  not  through  the 
old  parties,  then  over  the  old  parties,  (tremendous 


ITS    NECESSITY    AND    PRACTICABILITY.          181 

cheering,)  this  irresistible  current  shall  find  its  way. 
(Enthusiasm.)  It  cannot  be  permanently  stopped. 
If  the  old  parties  will  not  become  its  organ,  they  must 
become  its  victim.  (Cheers.)  The  party  of  Freedom 
will  certainly  prevail.  (Sensation.)  It  may  be  by  enter- 
ing into,  and  possessing  one  of  the  old  parties,  filling 
it  with  our  own  strong  life ;  or  it  may  be  by  drawing 
from  both  to  itself  the  good  and  true  who  are  unwill- 
ing to  continue  members  of  any  political  combination 
when  it  ceases  to  represent  their  convictions.  But,  in 
one  way  or  the  other,  its  ultimate  triumph  is  sure. 
(Great  applause.)  Of  this  let  no  man  doubt.  (Re- 
peated cheers.) 

At  this  moment  we  are  in  a  minority.  At  the  last 
popular  election  in  Massachusetts,  there  were  twenty- 
eight  thousand  Free  Soilers,  forty-three  thousand 
Democrats,  and  sixty-four  thousand  Whigs.  But  this 
is  no  reason  for  discouragement.  According  to  recent 
estimates,  the  population  of  the  whole  world  amounts 
to  about  eight  hundred  millions.  Of  these  only  two 
hundred  and  sixty  millions  are  Christians,  while  the 
remaining  five  hundred  and  forty  millions  are  mainly 
Mahometans,  Brahmins  and  Idolaters.  Because  the 
Christians  are  in  this  minority,  that  is  no  reason  for 
renouncing  Christianity  and  for  surrendering  to  the  false 
religions  (cheers)  ;  nor  do  we  doubt  that  Christianity 
will  yet  prevail  over  the  whole  earth,  as  the  waters 
cover  the  sea.  ("  Hear  !  hear  ! ")  The  friends  of 
Freedom  in  Massachusetts  are  likewise  in  a  minority  ; 
but  they  will  not,  therefore,  renounce  Freedom  (cheers) ; 
nor  surrender  to  the  political  Mahometans  and  idol- 
aters of  Baltimore  ("  never  !  never  !  ") ;  nor  can  they 
16 


182  THE    PABTY    OF    FKEEDOM  ; 

doubt  that  their  cause,  like  Christianity,  will  yet  pre- 
vail. (Enthusiastic  cheers.) 

Our  cause  commends  itself.  But  it  is  also  com- 
mended by  our  candidates.  (Cheers.)  In  all  that 
makes  the  eminent  civilian  or  the  accomplished  states- 
man fit  for  the  responsibilities  of  government,  they  will 
proudly  compare  with  any  of  their  competitors  (ap- 
plause), while  they  are  dear  to  our  hearts  as  able,  well- 
tried,  loyal  supporters  of  those  vital  principles  of 
Freedom  which  we  seek  to  establish  under  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States.  (Applause.)  In  the 
Senate,  Mr.  Hale  (cheers)  is  admitted  to  be  foremost 
in  aptitude  and  readiness  of  debate,  whether  in  the 
general  legislation  of  the  country,  or  in  the  constant 
and  valiant  championship  of  our  cause.  (Applause.) 
His  genial  and  sun-like  nature  irradiates  the  antagon- 
ism of  political  controversy  (cheers),  while  his  active 
and  practical  mind,  richly  stored  with  various  experi- 
ence, never  fails  to  render  good  service.  (Great  cheer- 
ing-) 

Of  Mr.  Julian,  our  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency 
("  Hear  !  hear  ! "),  let  me  say  simply  that,  in  ability 
and  devotion  to  our  principles,  he  is  a  worthy  compeer 
of  Mr.  Hale.  To  vote  for  such  men  will  itself  be  a 
pleasure.  But  it  will  be  doubly  so  when  we  reflect 
that  in  this  way  we  bear  our  testimony  to  a  noble 
cause,  with  which  the  happiness,  welfare  and  fame  of 
our  country  are  indissolubly  connected.  (Repeated 
and  enthusiastic  cheers.) 

With  such  a  cause  and  such  candidates,  let  no  man 
be  disheartened.  The  tempest  may  blow,  but  ours  is 
a  life-boat,  which  cannot  be  harmed  by  wind  or  wave. 


ITS    NECESSITY    AND    PRACTICABILITY.          183 

The  genius  of  Liberty  sits  at  the  helm.  I  hear  her 
voice  of  cheer  saying,  "  Whoso  sails  with  me  comes 
to  shore." 

Mr.  Sumner  resumed  his  seat  amid  the  heartiest  and  long 
protracted  applause. 


CIVIL  SUPERINTENDENTS  OF  ARMORIES. 

SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  23o  FEE- 
UARY,  1853,  ON  THE  PROPOSITION  TO  CHANGE  THE  SUPER- 
INTENDENTS OF  ARMORIES. 


The  Army  Appropriation  Bill  being  under  discussion,  Mr. 
Davis,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  the  following  amendment : 

"  The  Act  of  Congress,  approved  August  23,  1842,  shall  be  so 
modified,  that  the  President  may,  if  in  his  opinion  the  public 
interest  demands  it,  place  over  any  of  the  armories  a  Superin- 
tendent who  does  not  belong  to  the  Army." 

In  the  course  of  the  debate  Mr.  Simmer  spoke  as  follows  : 

MR.  SUMNER.  —  Mr.  President,  I  do  not  desire  to 
speak  upon  the  general  subject  of  the  manufacture  of 
arms  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  which 
has  been  opened  in  debate  by  honorable  Senators. 
What  I  have  to  say  will  be  on  the  precise  question 
before  the  Senate,  and  nothing  else.  That  question 
as  I  understand  it,  is  on  the  amendment  proposed  by 
my  colleague  [Mr.  Davis],  according  to  which  the  act 
of  1842  is  to  be  so  far  modified  that  the  President,  in 
his  discretion,  may  place  over  the  armories  persons  not 
of  the  army  —  leaving  it,  therefore  to  his  judgment  to 
determine  whether  the  superintendent  shall  be  a  mili- 
tary man  or  a  civilian.  This  is  all. 

F1841 


CIVIL    SUPERINTENDENTS    OF    ARMORIES.       185 

The  Senate  has  been  exhorted  not  to  act  precip- 
itately ;  but  the  character  of  this  proposition  excludes 
all  idea  of  precipitation.  We  do  not  determine  abso- 
lutely that  the  system  shall  be  changed,  but  simply 
that  it  may  be  changed  in  the  discretion  of  the  Presi- 
dent. This  discretion,  which  naturally  will  be  exer- 
cised only  after  ample  inquiry,  stands  in  the  way  of  all 
precipitation ;  and  this  is  my  answer  to  the  Senator 
from  Illinois  [Mr.  Shields]. 

Again :  it  is  urged  that  under  a  military  head,  the 
armories  are  better  administered  than  they  would  be 
under  a  civil  head,  and  that  the  arms  are  better  and 
cheaper  made  ;  and  here  my  friend  from  South  Caro- 
lina, who  sits  before  me  [Mr.  Butler],  dwelt  with  his 
accustomed  glow  upon  the  success  with  which  this 
manufacture  has  been  conducted  at  the  national  arm- 
ories, and  the  extent  to  which  it  has  been  recognized 
in  Europe.  But,  sir,  on  the  precise  question  now 
before  you,  the  merits  of  the  armories  are  not  involved. 
We  do  not  undertake  to  judge  the  military  superin- 
tendents or  their  works.  The  determination  of  this 
question  is  referred  to  the  President;  and  this  is  my 
answer  to  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina. 

The  objections  to  this  amendment  of  my  colleague, 
then,  seem  to  disappear.  But  there  are  two  distinct 
arguments  in  its  favor,  which,  at  the  present  moment, 
do  not  seem  to  me  susceptible  of  any  answer. 

In  the  first  place,  there  are  complaints  against  the 
existing  system  which  ought  to  be  heard.  A  memorial 
from  five  hundred  legal  voters  of  Springfield,  now  on 
your  table,  bears  testimony  to  them.  Letters  addressed 
to  myself  and  others,  from  persons  whose  opinions  I 
am  bound  to  regard,  set  them  forth  sometimes  in  very 
16* 


186       CITII,    SUPEKINTEXDENTS    OF    ABMORIES. 

strong  language.  The  administration  of  the  arsenal 
at  Springfield  is  commended  by  many,  but  there  are 
others  who  judge  it  differently.  As  now  conducted, 
it  is  represented  by  some  to  be  the  seat  of  oppressive 
conduct,  and  the  occasion  of  heart-burnings  and  strife, 
often  running  into  the  local  politics.  In  the  eyes  of 
some,  this  arsenal  is  now  little  better  than  a  sore  on 
that  beautiful  town.  Now,  on  these  complaints  and 
allegations  I  express  no  opinion.  I  do  not  affirm  their 
truth  or  their  untruth.  What  I  know  of  the  Superin- 
tendent, makes  it  difficult  for  me  to  believe  that  any 
thing  unjust,  oppressive,  or  hard,  could  proceed  from 
him.  But  the  whole  case  justifies  inquiry  at  least, 
and  such  will  be  secured  by  the  proposition  now 
before  the  Senate.  This  is  the  smallest  thing  we 
can  do. 

But  this  proposition  is  enforced  by  another  consid- 
eration which  seems  to  me  entitled  to  peculiar  weight. 
I  have  nothing  to  say  now  on  the  general  question 
of  reducing  the  army  or  modifying  the  existing  military 
system.  But  I  do  submit  confidently  that  the  genius 
of  our  institutions  favors  civil  life  rather  than  military 
life ;  and  that,  in  harmony  with  this,  it  is  our  duty, 
whenever  the  public  interests  will  permit,  to  limit  and 
restrain  the  sphere  of  military  influences.  This  is  not 
a  military  monarchy,  where  the  soldier  is  supreme, 
but  a  republic,  where  the  soldier  yields  to  the  civilian. 
But  the  law,  as  it  now  stands,  gives  to  the  soldier  an 
absolute  preference  in  a  service  which  is  not  military, 
and  which  from  its  nature,  seems  to  belong  to  civil 
life.  Now  the  manufacture  of  arms  is  a  mechanical 
pursuit,  and  for  myself,  I  can  see  no  reason  why  it 
should  not  be  placed  in  charge  of  one  bred  to  the 


CIVIL    SUPEBINTENDENTS    OF    AEMOEIES.       187 

business.  Among  the  intelligent  mechanics  of  Massa- 
chusetts, there  are  many  fully  fit  to  be  at  the  head  of 
the  arsenal  at  Springfield ;  but  all  these,  by  the  ex- 
isting law,  are  austerely  excluded  from  any  such  trust. 
The  idea  which  has  fallen  from  so  many  Senators,  that 
the  superintendent  of  an  armory  ought  to  be  a  military 
man  —  that  a  military  man  only  is  competent  —  or 
even  that  a  military  man  is  more  competent  than  a 
civilian,  seems  to  me  as  illogical  as  the  jocular  fallacy 
of  Dr.  Johnson,  that  "  He  who  drives  fat  oxen  must 
himself  be  fat." 


AGAINST  SECRECY  IN   THE    PROCEEDINGS  OP 
THE  SENATE. 

SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  6TH  APRIL, 
1853,  ON  THE  PROPOSITION  TO  LIMIT  THE  SECRET  SESSIONS 
OF  THE  SENATE. 


The  following  resolution  was  submitted  by  Mr.  Chase,  of 
Ohio  :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  sessions  and  all  proceedings  of  the 
Senate  shall  be  public  and  open,  except  when  matters  commu- 
nicated in  confidence  by  the  President,  shall  be  received  and 
considered,  and  in  such  other  cases  as  the  Senate  by  resolution 
from  time  to  time  shall  specially  order,  and  so  much  of  the  38th, 
89th  and  40th  rules  as  may  be  inconsistent  with  this  resolution 
is  hereby  rescinded." 

In  the  debate  which  ensued,  Mr.  Sumner  spoke  as  follows  : 

MR.  SUMNER.  —  Party  allusions  and  party  consid- 
erations have  been  brought  to  bear  upon  this  question. 
I  wish  to  regard  it  for  a  moment  in  the  light  of  the 
Constitution  and  in  the  spirit  of  our  institutions.  In  the 
Constitution  there  is  no  injunction  of  secrecy  on  any 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate ;  nor  is  there  any 
requirement  of  publicity.  To  the  Senate  is  left  abso- 
lutely the  determination  of  its  rules  of  proceedings. 
In  thus  abstaining  from  all  regulation  of  this  matter 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  have  obviously  regarded 

[188] 


AGAINST    SECBECY    IN   THE    SENATE.  189 

it  as  in  all  respects  within  the  discretion  of  the  Senate, 
to  be  exercised  from  time  to  time  as  it  thinks  best. 

The  Senate  exercises  three  important  functions  : 
first,  the  legislative  or  parliamentary  power,  wherein 
it  acts  concurrently  with  the  House  of  Representatives, 
as  well  as  the  President ;  secondly,  the  power  "  to 
advise  and  consent"  to  treaties  with  foreign  countries 
in  concurrence  with  the  President;  and,  thirdly,  the 
power  "  to  advise  and  consent"  to  nominations  by  the 
President  to  offices  under  the  Constitution.  I  say 
nothing  of  another,  rarely  called  into  exercise,  the 
sole  power  to  try  impeachments. 

At  the  first  organization  of  the  Government  the 
proceedings  of  the  Senate,  whether  in  legislation  or  on 
treaties  or  on  nominations,  were  with  closed  doors. 
In  this  respect  the  legislative  business  and  executive 
business  were  conducted  alike.  This  continued  down 
to  the  second  session  of  the  Third  Congress,  in  1794, 
when,  in  pursuance  of  a  formal  resolution,  the  galleries 
were  allowed  to  be  opened  so  long  as  the  Senate  were 
engaged  in  their  legislative  capacity,  unless  in  such 
cases  as  might,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Senate,  require 
secrecy  ;  and  this  rule  has  continued  ever  since.  Here 
was  an  exercise  of  the  discretion  of  the  Senate,  in 
obvious  harmony  with  public  sentiment  and  the  spirit 
of  our  institutions. 

The  change  now  proposed  goes  still  further.  It 
opens  the  doors  on  all  occasions,  whether  legislative 
or  executive,  except  when  specially  ordered  otherwise. 
The  Senator  from  South  Carolina  [Mr.  Butler]  says 
that  the  Senate  is  a  confidential  body,  and  should  be 
ready  to  receive  confidential  communications  from  the 
President.  But  this  will  still  be  the  case  if  we  adopt 


*00  AGAINST    SECRECY   IN    THE    SENATE. 

(he  resolution  now  under  consideration.  The  limita- 
tion proposed  seems  adequate  to  all  exigencies,  while 
the  general  rule  will  be  publicity.  The  Executive 
sessions  with  closed  doors,  shrouded  from  the  public 
gaze  and  public  criticism,  constitute  an  exceptional 
part  of  our  system,  too  much  in  harmony  with  the 
proceedings  of  other  Governments  less  liberal  in  char- 
acter. The  genius  of  our  institutions  requires  publicity. 
The  ancient  Roman,  who  bade  his  architect  so  to  con- 
struct his  house  that  his  guests  and  all  that  he  did 
could  be  seen  by  the  world,  is  a  fit  model  for  the 
American  people. 


•<•* 


THE  POWERS   OF  A  STATE   OVER  THE  MILITIA. 

SPEECHES  ON  THE  MILITIA  GENERALLY  AND  A  COLORED  MILITIA, 
IN  THE  CONVENTION  TO  REVISE  AND  AMEND  THE  CONSTI- 
TUTION OF  MASSACHUSETTS  *  21ST  AND  22D  JUNE,  1853. 


The  propositions  of  amendment  on  the  general  subject  of  the 
Militia  being  under  consideration  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
Mr.  Sumner  -spoke  as  follows  : 

I  SHOULD  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Committee 
to  the  precise  question  on  which  we  are  to  vote.  This 
does  not,  as  it  seems  to  me,  properly  open  the  discus- 
sion to  which  we  have  been  listening.  I  do  not  under- 
stand that  it  involves  the  topics  introduced  by  my 
friend  opposite  [Mr.  Wilson],  —  the  present  condi- 
tion of  Europe,  the  prospects  of  the  liberal  cause  in 
that  quarter  of  the  globe,  or  the  extent  to  which  that 
cause  may  be  affected  by  a  contemporaneous  movement 
for  peace.  Nor  do  I  understand  that  the  important 
considerations  introduced  by  the  gentleman  on  my 
right  [Mr.  Whitney,  of  Boylston],  on  the  extent  to 
which  Government  may  be  entrusted  with  the  power 

*  The  members  of  this  Convention  were  not  required  to  have 
their  domicil  in  the  places  which  they  represented.  Mr.  Sumner 
sat  as  the  member  for  Marshfield,  for  which  place  he  was  chosen 
while  absent  from  the  State. 

[191] 


192       POWERS    OF    A    STATE    OVEB    THE    MILITIA. 

of  the  sword,  can  materially  influence  our  decision.  I 
put  these  things  aside  at  this  time. 

The  question  is  on  the  final  passage  of  the  fifteen 
resolutions  reported  by  the  Committee  on  the  Militia ; 
and  here  let  me  catch  and  adopt  one  word  from  my 
friend  opposite  [Mr.  Wilson].  He  regretted,  if  I 
understood  him,  that  this  whole  subject  was  not  com- 
pressed into  one  or  two  resolutions.  Am  I  right  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.     The  gentleman  is  correct. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  I  agree  with  him.  I  regret  that  it 
was  not  compressed  into  one  or  two  resolutions.  I 
object  to  these  resolutions  for  several  reasons.  In  the 
first  place,  there  are  too  many.  In  the  second  place, 
at  least  two  of  them  seem  to  be  an  assumption  of 
power  belonging  to  Congress,  and,  therefore,  at  least, 
of  doubtful  constitutionality;  and  in  the  third  place, 
because  twelve  of  them  undertake  to  control  matters 
which  it  were  better  to  leave  to  the  Legislature. 

On  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  of  Massachu- 
setts, in  1780,  it  was  natural  that  our  fathers  should 
introduce  into  it  details  with  regard  to  the  militia  and 
its  organization.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
had  not  then  been  made.  But  since  the  establish- 
ment of  this  Constitution,  the  whole  condition  of  the 
militia  is  changed.  Among  the  powers  expressly  given 
to  Congress,  is  the  power  "  to  provide  for  organizing, 
arming  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  for  governing 
such  part  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  service 
of  the  United  States,  reserving  to  the  States  respectively 
the  appointment  of  the  officers  and  the  authority  of 
training  the  militia,  according  to  the  discipline  pre- 
scribed by  Congress."  And  Congress  have  proceeded 
to  exercise  this  power  by  the  organization  of  a  national 


POWERS    OF    A    STATE    OVER    THE    MILITIA.       193 

militia.  I  submit  that  whatever  might  have  been  the 
original  inducements  to  introduce  multiform  provisions 
on  this  subject  into  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts, 
none  such  exist  at  this  day ;  and  it  is  impolitic,  at 
least,  to  introduce  them. 

But  I  fear  that  they  are  more  than  impolitic.  I  will 
not  argue  here  the  question  of  constitutional  law  ;  but 
I  submit  to  the  better  judgment  of  my  professional 
brethren  —  and  I  am  happy  to  see  some  of  them 
lingering  at  this  late  hour  —  that  any  attempt  on  the 
part  of  the  State  to  interfere,  in  any  way,  by  addition 
or  subtraction,  with  the  organization  of  the  national 
militia,  is  an  experiment  which  we  should  not  introduce 
into  the  permanent  text  of  our  organic  law.  If  the 
decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
on  the  powers  of  Congress  are  to  prevail,  then,  it 
seems  to  me,  any  such  assumption,  in  a  case  where  the 
original  power  of  Congress  is  clear,  will  be  unconstitu- 
tional and  void.  In  the  famous  case  of  Prigg  v. 
Pennsylvania,  after  an  elaborate  discussion  at  the  bar, 
all  State  legislation  on  the  subject  of  fugitive  slaves 
was  declared  to  be  unconstitutional  and  void,  while 
Congress  was  recognized  as  the  sole  depository  of 
power  on  this  subject.  According  to  my  recollection, 
it  was  expressly  held,  that  the  legislation  by  Congress 
excluded  all  State  legislation  on  the  same  subject, 
whether  to  control,  qualify  or  superadd  to  the  remedy 
enacted  by  Congress.  I  commend  gentlemen,  who 
are  now  so  swift  to  introduce  these  provisions  into  our 
Constitution,  to  the  study  of  this  precedent.  It  is 
comparatively  recent ;  and  the  principle  of  interpreta- 
tion which  it  establishes  is  applicable  to  State  laws  on 
the  militia,  even  though  entirely  inapplicable  to  State 
17 


194       POWEKS    OF    A    STATE    OVEH    THE    MILITIA. 

laws  on  fugitive  slaves ;  for  the  simple  reason  that  in 
the  former  case  the  original  power  of  Congress  is  clear, 
while  in  the  latter  it  is  denied. 

But  the  States  are  not  without  power  over  the 
militia.  In  the  very  grant  to  Congress  is  a  reser- 
vation to  them  as  follows :  "  reserving  to  the  States 
respectively  the  appointment  of  the  officers  and  the 
authority  of  training  the  militia,  according  to  the  dis- 
cipline prescribed  by  Congress."  And  here  is  precisely 
what  the  States  can  do.  They  may  appoint  the  officers 
and  train  the  militia. 

Now,  sir,  the  first  two  resolutions  before  us  transcend 
the  powers  of  the  State.  They  touch  the  enrolment 
and  organization  of  the  militia,  and  on  this  account  are 
an  assumption  of  power,  forbidden  by  the  principle  to 
which  I  have  referred.  The  other  thirteen  resolutions, 
with  the  exception  of  the  seventh,  are  in  the  nature  of 
a  military  code,  concerning  the  choice  of  officers,  all 
of  which  should  be  left  to  the  action  of  the  Legis- 
lature. 

In  conformity  with  these  views,  Mr.  Chairman,  and 
in  the  hope  of  presenting  a  proposition  on  which  the 
Convention  may  unite,  I  propose  to  strike  out  all  after 
the  preamble  and  insert  two  resolutions,  as  folloAvs  : 

Art.  1.  The  Governor  shall  be  the  Commander-in-Chief  of  the 
Army  and  Navy  of  the  State,  and  the  Militia  thereof,  excepting 
when  these  forces  shall  be  actually  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States  ;  and  shall  have  power  to  call  out  the  same  to  aid  in  the 
execution  of  the  laws,  to  suppress  insurrection,  and  to  repel 
invasion. 

Art.  2.  The  appointment  of  officers  and  the  training  of  the 
Militia  shall  be  regulated  in  such  manner  as  may  hereafter  be 
deemed  expedient  by  the  Legislature,  and  all  persons,  who  from 
scruples  of  conscience,  shall  be  averse  to  bearing  arms  shall  be 


POWERS    OP    A    STATE    OVER    THE    MILITIA.       195 

excused  on  such  conditions  as  shall  hereafter  be  prescribed  by 
law. 

The  first  of  these  resolutions  is  identical  with  the 
seventh  resolution  of  the  Committee.  The  second  pro- 
vides for  the  exercise,  by  the  Legislature,  of  the  powers 
expressly  reserved  to  the  States,  over  the  appointment 
of  officers  and  the  training  of  the  militia;  and  taking 
advantage  of  the  Act  of  Congress,  which  allows  the 
States  to  determine  who  shall  be  exempted  from  mili- 
tary duty,  it  plants  in  the  text  of  the  Constitution  a 
clause  by  which  this  immunity  is  secured  to  all  persons, 
who,  from  scruples  of  conscience,  shall  be  averse  to 
bearing  arms.  I  believe  we  cannot  go  far  beyond 
these  without  doing  too  much,  while  these  seem  to  me 
to  be  enough.  I  send  the  resolutions  to  the  Chair, 
and  leave  the  Convention  to  dispose  of  them  as  they 
think  proper. 

On  the  next  day,  22d  June,  the  following  resolution  was 
brought  forward  by  Mr.  Wilson  : 

Resolved,  That  no  distinction  shall  ever  be  made  in  the  organ- 
ization of  the  volunteer  militia  of  the  Commonwealth  on  account 
of  color  or  race. 

On  this  proposition  Mr.  Sumner  spoke  as  follows  : 

I  have  a  suggestion  to  make  to  my  friend  opposite 
[Mr.  Wilson],  in  regard  to  the  form  of  his  proposition, 
which,  if  he  will  accept  it,  will,  as  it  seems  to  me,  ab- 
solutely remove  his  proposition  from  the  criticism  of 
my  most  eloquent  friend  before  me  [Mr.  Choate], 
and  from  the  criticism  of  other  gentlemen  who  have 
addressed  the  Convention.  I  suggest  to  him  to  strike 
out  the  word  "  militia,"  and  substitute  therefor  the 


196       POWEKS    OF    A    STATE    OVEB    THE    MILITIA. 

words,  "  military  companies,"  so  that  his  proposition 
will  read  "  that  in  the  organization  of  the  volunteer 
military  companies  of  the  Commonwealth  there  shall 
be  no  distinction  of  color  or  race." 

Mr.  WILSON.  I  accept  the  suggestion,  and  will 
amend  my  proposition  accordingly. 

Mr.  SUAINEK.  Now  that  proposition,  as  amended, 
I  submit,  is  absolutely  consistent  with  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and,  I  believe,  in  conformity  with 
the  public  sentiment  of  Massachusetts. 

A  brief  inquiry  will  show  that  it  is  consistent  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  in  no  respect 
interferes  with  the  organization  of  the  National  Militia. 
That  Constitution  provides  for  organizing,  arming  and 
disciplining  a  militia,  and  gives  Congress  full  power 
over  the  subject  —  in  which  particular,  be  it  observed, 
it  is  clearly  distinguishable  from  that  of  fugitive  slaves, 
over  whom  no  such  power  is  given.  To  be  more  ex- 
plicit, I  will  read  the  clause.  It  is  found  in  the  long 
list  of  enumerated  powers  of  Congress,  and  is  as  fol- 
lows :  — "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  provide  for 
organizing,  arming  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  of 
governing  such  part  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States,  reserving  to  the  States 
respectively  the  appointment  of  the  officers,  and  the 
authority  of  training  the  militia,  according  to  the  dis- 
cipline prescribed  by  Congress."  And  then  at  the 
close  of  the  section  it  is  further  declared  "  that  Congress 
shall  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper 
for  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers." 

In  pursuance  of  this  power,  Congress  have  proceeded 
by  various  laws,  "  to  provide  for  organizing,  arming 
and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  for  governing  such 


FOWEBS    OF    A    STATE    OVER    THE    MILITIA.        197 

part  of  them  as  may  be  engaged  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States."  The  earliest  of  these  laws,  which  is 
still  in  force,  is  entitled,  "  An  act  more  effectually  to 
provide  for  the  national  defence,  by  establishing  an 
uniform  militia  throughout  the  United  States."  [Act 
of  May  8th,  1792,  ch.  33.]  This  has  been  followed 
by  several  acts  in  addition  thereto.  Congress,  then, 
have  undertaken  to  exercise  the  power  of  "  organizing  " 
the  militia  under  the  Constitution. 

And  here  the  question  arises,  to  what  extent,  if  any, 
this  power,  when  already  exercised  by  Congress,  is  ex- 
clusive in  its  character.  Among  the  powers  delegated 
to  Congress,  there  may  be  some  which  are  not  for  the 
time  being  exercised.  For  instance,  there  is  the  power 
"  to  fix  the  standard  of  weights  and  measures."  Prac- 
tically this  has  never  been  exercised  by  Congress  ;  but 
it  has  been  left  to  each  State  within  its  own  jurisdic- 
tion. On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  power  belonging 
to  the  same  group,  "  to  establish  uniform  laws  on  the 
subject  of  bankruptcies  throughout  the  United  States," 
which,  when  exercised  by  Congress,  has  been  held  so 
far  exclusive,  as  to  avoid  at  once  all  the  bankrupt  and 
insolvent  laws  of  the  several  States. 

Sir,  I  might  go  over  all  the  powers  of  Congress,  and 
find  constant  illustration  of  the  subject.  For  instance, 
there  is  the  power  "  to  establish  an  uniform  rule  of 
naturalization,"  on  which  Chief  Justice  Marshall  once 
remarked  :  —  "  That  the  power  of  naturalization  is 
exclusively  in  Congress,  does  not  seem  to  be,  and  cer- 
tainly ought  not  to  be  controverted."  There  is  the 
power  "  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations  and 
among  the  several  States,"  which  was  early  declared 
by  the  Supreme  Court,  to  be  exclusive,  so  as  to  prevent 
17* 


198      POWEBS    OF    A    STATE    OVEB    THE    MILITIA. 

the  exercise  of  any  part  of  it  by  the  States.  There  is 
the  power  over  patents  and  copyrights,  which  has  also 
been  regarded  as  exclusive.  So,  also,  is  the  power 
"  to  define  and  punish  piracies  and  felonies,  committed 
on  the  high  seas,  and  offences  against  the  law  of 
nations."  So,  also,  is  still  another  power,  viz :  "  to 
establish  post-offices  and  post-roads.  All  of  these 
powers,  as  in  the  case  of  the  power  over  the  National 
Militia,  have  been  exercised  by  Congress,  and  even  if 
not  absolutely  exclusive  in  their  original  character, 
have  become  so  by  the  exercise. 

Now,  sir,  upon  what  ground  do  gentleman  make 
any  discrimination  in  the  case  of  the  power  over  the 
National  Militia  ?  I  know  of  no  ground  which  seems 
to  be  tenable.  It  is  natural  that  the  States  should 
desire  to  exercise  this  power,  since  it  was  so  important 
to  them  before  the  Union ;  but  I  do  not  see  how  any 
discrimination  can  be  maintained  at  the  present  time. 
Whatever  may  have  been  the  original  importance  of 
the  militia  to  each  State,  yet  when  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  was  formed,  and  Congress  exercised 
the  power  delegated  to  it  over  this  subject,  the  militia 
of  the  several  States  was  absorbed  into  one  uniform 
body,  organized,  armed  and  disciplined  as  the  National 
Militia.  To  the  States  respectively  was  left,  according 
to  the  express  language  of  the  Constitution,  "  the 
appointment  of  the  officers  and  the  authority  of  train- 
ing the  militia,  according  to  the  discipline  prescribed 
by  Congress."  To  this  we  may  add  the  implied  power 
of  "  governing  "  them  when  in  the  service  of  the  State. 
This  is  all.  The  distinct  specification  of  certain  powers, 
as  reserved  to  the  States,  seems  to  exclude  them  from 
the  exercise  of  all  others,  which  are  not  specified  or 


POWERS    OF   A   STATE    OVEB,   THE   MILITIA.       199 

clearly  implied.  In  other  words,  they  are  excluded 
from  all  power  over  the  "  organizing,  arming,  and  dis- 
ciplining the  militia,"  at  least  after  Congress  have 
undertaken  to  enact  laws  for  this  purpose. 

The  history  of  the  adoption  of  the  several  parts  of 
this  clause  in  the  Federal  Convention  reflects  light 
upon  its  true  meaning.  The  first  part,  in  regard  to 
organizing,  arming  and  disciplining  the  militia,  was 
passed  by  a  vote  of  nine  States  against  two  ;  the  next, 
referring  the  appointment  of  officers  to  the  States,  after 
an  ineffectual  attempt  to  amend  it  by  confining  the 
appointment  to  officers  under  the  rank  of  general  offi- 
cers, was  passed  without  a  division  ;  and  the  last,  re- 
serving to  the  States  the  authority  to  train  the  militia, 
according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by  Congress, 
was  passed  by  a  vote  of  seven  States  against  four. 
It  seems,  then,  that  there  was  a  strong  opposition  in 
the  Convention,  even  to  the  express  reservation  to  the 
States  of  "  the  authority  of  training  the  militia."  But 
this  power  is  not  reserved  unqualifiedly.  The  States 
are  to  train  the  militia  "  according  to  the  discipline 
prescribed  by  Congress  ;  "  not  according  to  any  dis- 
cipline determined  by  the  States,  or  by  the  States  con- 
currently with  the  General  Government ;  but  abso- 
lutely according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by 
Congress ;  nor  more,  nor  less ;  thus  distinctly  recog- 
nizing the  exclusive  character  of  the  legislation  of 
Congress  on  this  subject. 

This  interpretation  derives  confirmation  from  the 
manner  in  which  the  militia  of  England  was  constituted 
or  organized  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Federal 
Constitution.  To  the  crown  was  given  the  "  sole 
right  to  govern  and  command  them,"  though  they 


200      POWERS    OF    A    STATE    OVEB    THE    MILITIA. 

were  "  officered "  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  the 
county,  the  Deputy  Lieutenant,  and  other  principal 
landholders  of  the  county.  The  commentaries  of  Sir 
William  Blackstone,  from  which  this  description  is 
drawn,  were  familiar  to  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion ;  and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  in  the  dis- 
tribution of  powers  between  the  General  Government 
and  the  States,  on  this  subject,  the  peculiar  arrange- 
ment which  prevailed  in  the  mother  country  was  not 
disregarded. 

If  it  should  be  said  that  the  adoption  of  this  con- 
clusion would  affect  the  character  of  many  laws  en- 
acted by  States,  and  thus  far  recognized  as  ancillary  to 
the  National  Militia,  it  may  be  replied,  that  the  possi- 
bility of  these  consequences  cannot  justly  influence 
our  conclusions  on  a  question  which  must  be  deter- 
mined by  acknowledged  principles  of  constitutional 
law.  In  obedience  to  these  same  principles,  the 
Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  of  Prigg  v.  Pennsylvania, 
after  asserting  a  power  over  fugitive  slaves,  which  I 
cannot  admit,  has  proceeded  to  annul  a  large  num- 
ber of  statutes  in  different  States.  Mr.  Justice 
Wayne  in  this  case  said  :  "  That  the  legislation  by 
Congress  upon  the  provision,  as  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land,  excludes  all  State  legislation  upon  the 
same  subject ;  and  that  no  State  can  pass  any  law  or 
regulation,  or  interpose  such  as  may  have  been  a  law 
or  regulation  when  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  has  ratified  to  superadd  to,  control,  qualify,  or 
impede  a  remedy  enacted  by  Congress  for  the  delivery 
of  fugitive  slaves  to  the  parties  to  whom  their  service 
or  labor  is  due."  Without  the  sanction  of  any  express 
words  in  the  Constitution,  and  chiefly,  if  not  solely,  im- 


POWERS    OF   A   STATE    OVER   THE    MILITIA.      201 

pressed  by  the  importance  of  consulting  "  unity  of  pur- 
pose or  uniformity  of  operation"  in  the  legislation 
with  regard  to  fugitive  slaves,  the  Court  has  assumed  a 
power  over  this  subject,  and  then,  as  a  natural  incident 
to  this  assumption,  it  has  excluded  the  States  from  all 
sovereignty  in  the  premises. 

Now,  if  this  rule  be  applicable  to  the  pretended 
power  over  fugitive  slaves,  it  is  more  applicable  to 
the  power  over  the  militia  which  nobody  questions. 
Besides,  I  know  of  no  power  which  so  absolutely  re- 
quires what  has  been  regarded  as  an  important  crite- 
rion, "  unity  of  purpose  or  uniformity  of  operation," 
as  that  over  the  militia.  No  uniform  military  organi- 
zation can  spring  from  opposite  or  inharmonious  sys- 
tems, and  all  systems  proceeding  from  different  sources 
are  liable  to  be  opposite  or  inharmonious. 

Now,  sir,  let  us  apply  this  reasoning  to  the  matter 
in  hand,  that  we  may  arrive  at  a  just  conclusion. 
In  Massachusetts,  there  exists,  and  has  for  a  long 
time-  existed,  an  anomalous  system,  familiarly  and 
loosely  described  as  the  Volunteer  Militia,  not  com- 
posed absolutely  of  those  enrolled  under  the  laws  of 
the  United  States,  but  a  smaller,  more  select  and 
peculiar  body.  Now  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the 
State,  by  virtue  of  its  police  powers  within  its  own 
borders,  has  power  to  constitute  or  organize  a  body  of 
volunteers,  to  aid  in  enforcing  its  laws.  But  it  does 
not  follow  that  it  has  power  to  constitute  or  organize 
a  body  of  volunteers,  who  shall  be  regarded  as  a  part 
of  the  National  Militia.  And,  sir,  I  make  bold  to  say 
that  the  volunteer  militia  —  I  prefer  to  call  it  the 
volunteer  military  companies  —  cannot  be  regarded  as 
a  part  of  the  National  Militia.  It  is  no  part  of  that 

•'   "     *  ' 


202      POWERS    OE   A    STATE    OVER   THE   HILITIA. 

uniform  militia  which  it  was  the  object  of  the  early 
Act  of  Congress  to  organize.  It  may  appear  to  be  a 
part  of  this  system  —  it  may  affect  to  be,  but  I  submit, 
it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  it  is  so  in  any  just  con- 
stitutional sense. 

As  a  local  system,  disconnected  from  the  national 
militia,  and  not  in  any  way  constrained  by  its  organiza- 
tion, it  is  within  our  jurisdiction.  We  are  free  to 
declare  the  principles  which  shall  govern  it.  We  may 
declare  that,  whatever  may  be  the  existing  law  of  the 
United  States  with  regard  to  its  enrolled  militia  —  and 
with  this  I  propose  no  interference,  because  it  would 
be  futile  —  I  say,  Massachusetts  may  proudly  declare 
that  in  her  own  volunteer  military  companies,  mar- 
shalled under  her  own  local  laws,  there  shall  be  no 
distinction  of  color  or  race. 


THE   REPRESENTATIVE   SYSTEM   AND    ITS 
PROPER    BASIS. 

SPEECH  ON  THE  PROPOSITION  TO  AMEND  THE  BASIS  OF  THE  HOUSE 
OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  IN  THE  CONVENTION  TO 
REVISE  AND  AMEND  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THAT  STATE,  7lH  JULY, 
1853. 

Mr.  President,  if  the  question  under  consideration 
were  less  important  in  its  bearings,  or  less  embar- 
rassed by  conflicting  opinions,  I  should  hesitate  to 
break  the  silence  which  I  have  been  inclined  to 
preserve  in  this  Convention.  In  taking  the  seat 
to  which,  while  absent  from  the  Commonwealth,  in 
another  sphere  of  duty,  I  have  been  unexpectedly 
chosen,  I  felt  that  it  would  be  becoming  in  me  — 
and  that  my  associates  here  would  recognize  the 
propriety  of  my  course  —  considering  the  little  op- 
portunities I  had  of  late  enjoyed  to  make  myself 
acquainted  with  the  sentiments  of  the  people  on  pro- 
posed changes,  especially  in  comparison  with  friends 
to  whom  this  movement  is  mainly  due  —  on  these 
accounts,  and,  also,  on  other  accounts,  I  felt  that  it 
would  be  becoming  in  me  to  interfere  as  little  as  pos- 
sible with  these  debates.  To  others,  I  have  willingly 
left  the  part  which  I  might  have  taken. 

And  now,  when  I  think  that  since  our  labors  began, 
weeks,  even  months,  have  passed,  and  that  the  term 
has  been  already  reached,  when,  according  to  the  just 

[203] 


204  THE    REPBESENTATIYE    SYSTEM 

expectations  and  earnest  desires  of  many,  they  should 
be  closed,  I  feel  that  acts  rather  than  words  —  that 
votes  rather  than  speeches  —  at  least  such  as  I  might 
hope  to  make  —  are  needed  here,  to  "the  end  that  the 
Convention,  seasonably,  and  effectively  completing  its 
beneficent  work,  may  itself  be  hailed  as  a  Great  Act 
in  the  history  of  the  Commonwealth. 

But  the  magnitude  of  this  question  justifies  debate : 
and  allow  me  to  add  that  the  State,  our  common 
mother,  may  feel  proud  of  the  ability,  the  eloquence, 
and  the  good  temper  with  which  it  has  thus  far  been 
conducted.  Gentlemen  have  addressed  the  Convention 
in  a  manner  which  would  grace  any  assembly,  which 
it  has  been  my  fortune  to  know,  at  home  or  abroad. 
Sir,  the  character  of  these  proceedings  gives  us  new 
assurance  for  the  future.  The  alarmist,  who  starts  at 
every  suggestion  of  change,  and  the  croaker,  who 
augurs  constant  evil  from  tha  irresistible  tendency  of 
events,  must  confess,  that  there  are  men  here,  to  whose 
intelligence  and  patriotism,  under  God,  the  interests 
of  our  beloved  Commonwealth  may  be  entrusted. 
Yes,  sir,  Massachusetts  is  safe.  Whatever  may  be  the 
result  even  of  the  present  important  question  —  which- 
soever scheme  of  representation  may  be  adopted  — 
Massachusetts  will  continue  to  prosper  as  in  times 
past. 

In  the  course  of  human  history,  two  States,  small 
in  territory,  have  won  enviable  renown  by  their  genius 
and  devotion  to  Freedom,  so  that  their  very  names 
awaken  echoes  ;  I  refer  to  Athens  and  Scotland.  But 
Athens  —  even  at  Salamis,  repelling  the  Persian  host, 
or  afterwards,  in  the  golden  days  of  Pericles  —  and 
Scotland,  throughout  her  long  struggles  with  England, 


AND    ITS    PROPER    BASIS.  205 

down  to  the  very  act  of  Union  at  the  beginning  of  the 
last  century  —  were  inferior,  each  of  them,  in  popula- 
tion and  in  wealth,  to  Massachusetts  at  this  moment. 
It  belongs  to  us,  according  to  our  capacities,  to  see 
that  this  comparison  does  not  end  here.  Others  may 
believe  that  our  duty  will  be  best  accomplished  by 
standing  still.  I  believe  that  it  can  be  completely 
done  only  by  a  constant  incessant  advance  in  all  things 
—  in  knowledge,  in  science,  in  art,  and  lastly  in  gov- 
ernment itself,  destined  to  be  the  bright  consumma- 
tion, on  earth,  of  all  knowledge,  all  science,  and  all 
art. 

And  now,  sir,  in  framing  anew  our  Constitution,  we 
encounter  a  difficulty  which  at  its  original  formation 
in  1780,  perplexed  our  fathers  —  which  perplexed  the 
Convention  of  1820  —  which  with  its  perplexities  has 
haunted  successive  Legislatures  and  the  whole  people 
down  to  this  day  —  and  which  now  perplexes  us. 
This  difficulty  occurs  in  determining  the  Representative 
System,  and  it  arises  mainly  from  the  corporate  claims 
of  towns.  From  an  early  period,  the  towns  in  the 
State,  both  great  and  small,  with  slight  exceptions, 
have  sent  one  or  more  representatives  to  the  Legisla- 
ture. In  primitive  days,  when  the  towns  were  few 
and  the  whole  population  was  scanty,  this  arrangement 
Avas  convenient  at  least,  if  not  equitable.  But  now, 
with  the  increased  number  of  towns,  and  the  unequal 
distribution  of  a  large  population,  it  has  become  in- 
convenient, if  not  inequitable.  The  existing  system 
does  not  work  well,  and  we  are  summoned  to  reform 
it. 

And  here,  sir,  let  me  congratulate  the  Convention 
that,  on  this  most  important  question,  transcending 
18 


206  THE    BEPRESENTATIVE    SYSTEM 

every  other,  all  of  us,  without  distinction  of  paxty,  are 
in  favor  of  reform.  We  are  all  Reformers.  The  ex- 
isting system  finds  no  advocate  on  this  floor.  Nobody 
here  will  do  it  reverence.  If  the  call  of  the  Conven- 
tion were  not  already  amply  vindicated  —  if  there  were 
doubt  anywhere  of  its  expediency,  the  remarkable  con- 
currence of  all  sides  in  condemning  the  existing  repre- 
sentative system  shows  that  we  have  not  come  together 
without  cause. 

The  orders  of  the  day  have  been  filled  with  the 
various  plans  offered  to  meet  the  exigency.  Most  of 
these  aimed  to  preserve  the  corporate  representation 
of  towns  ;  some  of  them,  at  least  one  from  the  vener- 
able gentleman  from  Taunton  [Mr.  Morton],  and 
another  from  the  venerable  gentleman  from  Boston 
[Mr.  Hale],  adopted  an  opposite  system,  hitherto  un- 
tried among  us,  and  proposed  to  divide  the  State  into 
districts.  And  the  question  has  been  between  these 
hostile  propositions  ;  and  that  is  the  question  which  I 
propose  to  consider,  in  the  light  of  history  and  abstract 
principle,  and,  also,  with  reference  to  present  exigen- 
cies. I  shall  speak  first  of  the  origin  and  nature  of 
the  Representative  System  and  its  proper  conditions 
under  American  institutions.  And  secondly,  I  shall 
endeavor  to  indicate  the  principles  which  may  conduct 
us  to  a  practical  conclusion  on  the  present  occasion. 
In  entering  upon  this  service,  at  this  late  stage  of  the 
debate,  I  feel  like  a  tardy  gleaner  in  a  well-traversed 
field  ;  but  I  shall  proceed. 

I.  And  I  begin  with  the  origin  and  nature  of  the 
Representative  System.  This  is  an  invention  of 
modern  times.  In  antiquity  there  were  republics  and 
democracies ;  but  there  was  no  Representative  System. 


ITS    PROPER    BASIS.  207 


Rulers  were  chosen  by  the  people,  as  in  many  Com- 
monwealths ;  senators  were  designated  by  the  king  or 
by  the  censors,  as  in  Rome;  ambassadors  or  legates 
were  sent  to  a  Federal  Council,  as  to  the  Assembly  of 
the  Amphictyons;  but,  in  no  ancient  State,  was  any 
body  of  men  ever  constituted  by  the  people  to  repre- 
sent them  in  the  administration  of  their  internal  affairs. 
In  Athens,  the  people  met  in  public  assembly,  and 
directly  acted  for  themselves  in  all  questions,  foreign 
or  domestic.  This  was  possible  there,  as  the  State 
was  small,  and  the  Assembly  at  no  time  exceeded  five 
thousand  citizens,  —  a  large  town-meeting,  or  mass- 
meeting,  we  might  call  it,  —  not  inaptly  termed  the 
"  fierce  democracie  "  of  Athens. 

But  where  the  territory  was  extensive,  and  the  pop- 
ulation scattered  and  numerous,  there  could  be  no 
Assembly  of  the  whole  body  of  citizens.  To  meet  this 
precise  difficulty,  the  Representative  System  was 
devised.  By  a  machinery,  so  obvious  that  we  are 
astonished  it  was  not  employed  in  the  ancient  Com- 
monwealths, the  people,  though  scattered  and  numer- 
ous, are  gathered,  by  their  chosen  representatives,  into  a 
small  and  deliberative  assembly,  where,  without  tumult 
or  rashness,  they  may  consider  and  determine  all  ques- 
tions which  concern  them.  In  every  representative 
body,  properly  constituted,  the  people  are  practically 
present. 

Nothing  is  invented  and  perfected  at  the  same  time  ; 
and  this  system  has  been  no  exception  to  the  rule. 
In  England,  where  it  reached  its  earliest  vigor,  it  has 
been,  and  still  is,  anomalous  in  its  character.  The 
existing  divisions  of  the  country,  composed  of  boroughs, 
cities,  and  counties,  were  summoned  by  the  king's 


208  THE    REPRESENTATIVE    SYSTEM 

writ  to  send  representatives,  with  little  regard  to 
equality  of  any  kind,  whether  of  population,  of  taxa- 
tion, or  of  territory.  Their  existence  as  corporate 
units  was  the  prevailing  title.  The  irregular  opera- 
tion of  the  system,  increasing  with  the  lapse  of  time, 
provoked  a  cry  for  Parliamentary  Reform,  which,  after 
a  struggle  of  more  than  fifty  years,  ending  in  a  debate 
which  occupied  the  House  of  Commons  more  than  fifty 
days,  was  finally  carried;  but,  though  many  abuses 
and  inequalities  were  removed,  yet,  the  anomalous 
representation  by  counties,  cities  and  boroughs,  was 
still  continued.  And  this,  sir,  is  the  English  system. 

Pass  now,  sir,  to  the  American  system.  I  say 
American  system,  for  to  our  country  belongs  the  honor 
of  first  giving  to  the  world  the  idea  of  a  system,  which, 
discarding  corporate  representation,  founded  itself 
absolutely  on  equality.  Let  us  acknowledge  with 
gratitude,  that  from  England  have  come  five  great  and 
ever  memorable  institutions,  by  which  Liberty  is  se- 
cured —  I  mean  the  Trial  by  Jury,  —  the  writ  of  Habeas 
Corpus,  —  the  Representative  System,  —  the  Rules  and 
Orders  of  Debate ;  and,  lastly,  that  benign  principle 
which  pronounces  that  its  air  is  too  pure  for  a  slave 
to  breathe  —  perhaps  the  five  most  important  political 
establishments  of  modern  times.  This  glory  cannot 
be  taken  from  the  mother  country.  But  America 
has  added  to  the  Representative  System  another  prin- 
ciple, without  which  it  is  incomplete,  and  which,  in 
the  course  of  events,  is  destined,  I  cannot  doubt,  to 
find  acceptance  wherever  the  Representative  System 
is  employed.  I  mean  the  principle  of  equality. 

Here  in  Massachusetts,  home  of  the  ideas  out  of 
which  sprung  the  Revolution,  this  principle  had  its 


AND    ITS    PKOPEH    BASIS.  209 

earliest  expression.  And  it  is  not  a  little  curious  that 
this  very  expression  was  suggested  by  the  two  evils  of 
which  we  now  complain  —  namely,  a  practical  ine- 
quality of  representation  and  a  too  numerous  House. 
Let  me  furnish  some  details  of  its  history. 

In  the  earliest  days  of  the  Colony,  while  the  number 
of  freemen  was  small  and  gathered  in  one  neighbor- 
hood, there  was  no  occasion  for  any  representative 
body.  All  could  then  meet  as  at  ancient  Athens,  in 
public  assembly ;  and  in  fact,  they  did  so  meet,  and 
in  this  way  discharged  the  duties  of  legislation.  But 
as  the  freemen  became  scattered  and  numerous,  it  was 
found  grievous  to  compel  the  personal  attendance  of 
the  whole  body,  and,  as  a  substitute  therefor,  the 
towns  were  directed,  in  1634,  to  assemble  in  General 
Court,  by  deputies.  Here  was  the  establishment  of 
the  Representative  System  in  Massachusetts,  which 
has  continued,  without  interruption,  down  to  our  day. 
The  size  of  the  House  and  the  relative  representation 
of  towns  have  varied  at  different  times  ;  but  the  great 
principle  of  representation  —  by  which  a  substitute  is 
provided  for  the  whole  body  of  the  people  —  has  been 
constantly  preserved.  Still  a  feeling  has  long  pre- 
vailed, that  the  system  had  not  yet  received  its  final 
form,  while,  in  more  than  vision,  has  been  discerned 
that  principle  of  equality  which  is  essential  to  its  com- 
pleteness. 

Among  the  acts  of  the  first  General  Court  of  the 
Revolution,  was  one  passed  in  the  summer  of  1775, 
after  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  "  declaratory  of  the 
rights  of  the  towns  and  districts  to  elect  and  depute  a 
representative  or  representatives  to  serve  for  and  repre- 
sent them  in  the  General  Court."  By  this  act,  all  pre- 
18* 


210  THE    REPRESENTATIVE    SYSTEM 

vious  acts  taking  from  towns  and  districts  the  right  of 
sending  a  representative  to  the  General  Court  were 
repealed,  and  every  town  containing  thirty  qualified 
voters,  was  authorized  to  send  a  representative.  The 
immediate  consequence  was  the  two  evils  to  which  I 
have  already  referred  —  namely,  inequality  of  repre- 
sentation, and  a  too  numerous  House ;  but  the  whole 
number  of  representatives  which  aroused  the  com- 
plaints of  that  day,  was  two  hundred  and  sixty. 

These  grievances  were  the  occasion  of  a  Convention  of 
delegates  from  the  towns  of  Essex  County,  at  Ipswich, 
April  25th,  1776,  where  a  memorial  to  the  Legislature 
was  adopted,  which  was  afterwards  presented  and 
enforced  at  the  bar  of  the  House  by  John  Lowell.  In 
this  remarkable  document  occurs  the  first  development, 
if  not  the  first  proclamation  of  the  principle  of  equality 
in  representation.  Here,  sir,  is  the  fountain  and  origin 
of  an  idea,  full  of  strength,  beauty  and  glory.  Listen 
to  the  words  of  these  Revolutionary  fathers  :  — 

"  If  the  representation  is  equal,  it  is  perfect ;  as  far  as  it  devi- 
ates from  this  equality,  so  far  it  is  imperfect,  and  approaches  to 
the  state  of  slavery  ;  and  the  want  of  a  just  weight  in  represen- 
tation is  an  evil  nearly  akin  to  being  totally  destitute  of  it.  An 
inequality  of  representation  has  been  justly  esteemed  the  cause, 
which  has,  in  a  great  degree,  sapped  the  foundation  of  the  once 
admired,  but  now  tottering  fabric  of  the  British  empire  ;  and  we 
fear  that  if  a  different  mode  of  representation  from  the  present  is 
not  adopted  in  this  colony,  our  Constitution  will  not  continue  to 
the  late  period  of  time  which  the  glowing  heart  of  every  true 
American  now  anticipates.  .  .  . 

"  We  cannot  realize  that  your  honors,  our  wise  political  fathers, 
have  adverted  to  the  present  inequality  of  representation  in  this 
colony,  to  the  growth  of  the  evil,  or  to  the  fatal  consequences 
which  will  probably  ensue  from  the  continuance  of  it. 

"  Each  town  and  district  in  the  colony  is,  by  some  late  regu- 


AND    ITS    PROPER    BASIS.  211 

lations,  permitted  to  send  one  representative  to  the  General 
Court,  if  such  town  or  district  consists  of  thirty  freeholders  and 
other  inhabitants  qualified  to  elect ;  if  of  one  hundred  and  twenty, 
to  send  two.  No  town  is  permitted  to  send  more  than  two  except 
the  town  of  Boston,  which  may  send  four.  There  are  some 
towns  and  districts  in  the  colony,  in  which  there  are  between 
thirty  and  forty  freeholders  and  other  inhabitants  qualified  to 
elect  only  ;  there  are  others  beside  Boston,  in  which  there  are 
more  than  five  hundred.  The  first  of  these  may  send  one  repre- 
sentative, the  latter  can  send  only  two.  If  these  towns  as  to 
property  are  to  each  other  in  the  same  respective  proportion,  is 
it  not  clear  to  a  mathematical  demonstration  that  the  same 
number  of  inhabitants  of  equal  property  in  the  one  town,  have 
but  an  eighth  part  of  the  weight  in  representation  with  the  other  ; 
and  with  what  colorable  pretext  we  would  decently  inquire." 

Under  the  pressure  of  this  powerful  state  paper  the 
obnoxious  law  was  repealed ;  but  the  evil  was  not 
remedied.  Then  followed  the  unsuccessful  effort  to 
make  a  Constitution  in  1777,  which  failed  partly 
through  dissatisfaction  with  its  disposition  of  this  very 
question.  The  county  of  Essex  was  again  heard  in 
another  document,  now  known  as  the  "  Essex  Result," 
and,  among  the  most  able  and  instructive  in  our  his- 
tory, from  which  I  take  the  following  important  words : 
"  The  rights  of  representation  should  be  so  equally 
and  impartially  distributed,  that  the  representatives 
should  have  the  same  views  and  interests  with  the 
people  at  large.  They  should  think,  feel,  and  act  like 
them,  and,  in  fine,  should  be  an  exact  miniature  of 
their  constituents.  They  should  be,  if  we  may  use 
the  expression,  the  whole  body  politic,  with  all  its 
property,  rights  and  privileges,  reduced  to  a  similar 
scale,  every  part  being  diminished  in  just  proportion, 
To  pursue  the  metaphor,  if,  in  adjusting  the  represen- 
tation of  freemen,  any  ten  are  reduced  into  one,  all  the 


212  THE    BEPRESENTATIVE    SYSTEM 

other  tens  should  be  alike  reduced ;  or,  if  any  hundred 
should  be  reduced  to  one,  all  the  other  hundreds  should 
have  just  the  same  reduction."  Mark  well  these  words. 
Here  is  the  Rule  of  Three,  for  the  first  time  in  history, 
applied  to  representation.  This,  Sir,  is  not  the  Eng- 
lish system.  I  call  it,  with  pride,  the  American 
system. 

In  another  place  the  document  proceeds  as  follows  : 

"  The  rights  of  representation  should  also  be  held  sacred  and 
inviolable,  and  for  this  purpose,  representation  should  be  fixed 
upon  known  and  easy  principles  ;  and  the  Constitution  should 
make  provision  that  recourse  should  constantly  be  had  to  those 
principles  within  a  very  small  period  of  years,  to  rectify  the 
errors  that  will  creep  in  through  lapse  of  time  or  alteration  of 
situations." 

It  then  distinctly  proposes  a  system  of  districts,  in 
words  which  I  quote  :  — 

"  In  forming  the  first  body  of  legislators,  let  regard  be  had 
only  to  the  representation  of  persons,  not  of  property  This 
body  we  call  the  House  of  Representatives.  Ascertain  the  num- 
ber of  representatives.  It  ought  not  to  be  so  large  as  will  induce 
an  enormous  expense  to  government,  nor  too  unwieldy  to  delib- 
erate with  coolness  and  attention  ;  nor  so  small  as  to  be  unac- 
quainted with  the  situation  and  circumstances  of  the  State,  One 
hundred  will  be  large  enough,  and,  perhaps,  it  may  be  too  large. 
We  are  persuaded  that  any  number  of  men  exceeding  that, 
cannot  do  business  with  such  expedition  and  propriety  as  a 
smaller  number  could.  However,  let  that  at  present  be  con- 
sidered as  the  number.  Let  us  have  the  number  of  freemen  in 
the  several  counties  in  the  State  ;  and  let  these  representatives 
be  apportioned  among  the  respective  counties,  in  proportion  to 
their  number  of  freemen. 

"  As  we  have  the  number  of  freemen  in  the  county,  and  the 
number  of  county  representatives,  by  dividing  the  greater  by  the 
less  we  have  the  number  of  freemen  entitled  to  send  one  represen- 


A5JD    ITS    PROPER    BASIS.  213 

tative.  Then  add  as  many  adjoining  towns  together  as  contain 
that  number  of  freemen,  or  as  near  as  may  be,  and  let  those 
towns  form  one  district,  and  proceed  in  this  manner  through  the 
country." 

Mr.  HALLETT,  for  Wilbraham  (interrupting).  Will 
the  gentleman  state  who  was  the  author  of  that  Essex 
paper. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Theophilus  Parsons  is  the  reputed 
author  of  the  document  known  as  the  "  Essex  Result." 

Mr.  HALLETT.  Yes,  Sir,  it  was  Theophilus  Parsons 
who  was  the  author  of  that,  and  John  Lowell  of  the 
other,  and  good  old  Tory  doctrines  they  are. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  If  these  be  Tory  doctrines,  I  must 
think  well  of  Toryism. 

Mr.  BIRD,  of  Walpole.  The  gentleman  for  Marsh- 
field  speaks  of  the  basis  of  representation  in  one 
House.  I  should  like  to  know  what  was  the  basis 
proposed  at  that  time  for  the  other  branch  ? 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Property,  I  believe.  But,  Sir,  I  put 
these  inquiries  aside.  I  do  not  concern  myself  with 
the  authorship  of  these  doctrines,  or  with  the  character 
of  other  doctrines  with  which  they  were  associated  in 
the  minds  of  their  authors.  All  this  is  irrelevant  and 
unimportant.  I  refer  to  them  in  the  history  of  the 
question  and  hasten  on. 

Sir,  notwithstanding  these  appeals,  sustained  by 
unsurpassed  ability,  the  American  system  failed  to  be 
adopted  in  the  Constitution  of  1 780.  The  anomalous 
English  system  was  still  continued ;  but,  as  if  to  cover 
the  departure  from  principle,  it  was  twice  declared  that 
the  representation  of  the  people  should  be  "  founded 
on  the  principle  of  equality."  This  declaration,  still 
continues  as  our  guide,  while  the  irregular  operation 


214  THE    KEPRESENTATIVE    STSTEM 

of  the  existing  system,  with  its  inequalities  and  large 
numbers,  is  a  beacon  of  warning. 

Following  closely  upon  these  efforts  in  Massachu- 
setts, this  principle  found  an  illustrious  advocate  in 
Thomas  Jefferson.  In  his  Notes  on  Virginia,  written 
in  1780,  he  sharply  exposes  the  inequalities  of  repre- 
sentation, and,  a  short  time  afterwards,  when  the  vic- 
tory at  Yorktown  had  rescued  Virginia  from  invasion 
and  secured  the  independence  of  the  United  Colonies, 
he  prepared  a  draught  of  a  Constitution  for  his  native 
State,  which,  disowning  the  English  System  and  recog- 
nizing the  very  principle  that  had  failed  in  Massa- 
chusetts, expressly  provided  that,  "  the  number  of 
delegates  which  each  county  may  send  shall  be  in  pro- 
portion to  the  number  of  its  qualified  electors ;  and  the 
whole  number  of  delegates  for  the  State  shall  be  so 
proportioned  to  the  whole  number  of  qualified  electors 
in  it,  that  they  shall  never  exceed  three  hundred,  nor 
be  fewer  than  one  hundred  ;  and  if  any  county  be 
reduced  in  its  qualified  electors  below  the  number 
authorized  to 'send  one  delegate,  let  it  be  annexed  to 
some  adjoining  county."  This  proposition,  which  is 
substantially  the  Rule  of  Three,  was  not  adopted  in 
Virginia.  This  State,  like  Massachusetts,  was  not  yet 
prepared  for  such  a  charter  of  electoral  equality  ;  but 
it  still  stands  as  a  monument  at  once  of  its  author  and 
of  the  true  system  of  representation. 

The  American  System,  though  first  showing  itself 
in  Massachusetts  and  in  Virginia,  found  its  earliest 
practical  exemplification  only  a  few  years  later  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  By  the  Articles 
of  Confederation  each  State  was  entitled  to  send  to 
Congress  not  less  than  two,  nor  more  than  seven  repre- 


AND    ITS    PROPER   BASIS.  216 

sentatives,  and  in  the  determination  of  questions,  each 
State  had  one  vote  only.  This  plan  was  rejected  by 
the  framers  of  the  new  Constitution  ;  and  another, 
until  then  untried  in  the  history  of  the  world,  was 
adopted.  It  was  declared  that  "  representatives  and 
direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States 
which  may  be  included  in  this  Union,  according  to 
their  respective  numbers ; "  not  according  to  property  ; 
not  according  to  territory ;  not  according  to  any  cor- 
porate rights ;  but  according  to  their  respective  numbers. 
And  this  system  has  continued  down  to  our  day,  and 
will  continue  immortal  as  the  Union  itself.  Here  is 
the  Rule  of  Three  actually  incorporated  into  the  Repre- 
sentative System  of  the  United  States. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  render  this  system 
odious,  or  at  least  questionable,  by  charging  upon  it 
something  of  the  excesses  of  the  great  French  Revolu- 
tion. Even  if  this  rule  had  prevailed  at  that  time  in 
France,  it  would  be  bold  to  attribute  to  it  any  such 
consequences.  But  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  it 
was  then  adopted  in  that  country.  The  republican 
Constitution  of  1791  was  not  founded  upon  numbers 
only ;  but  upon  numbers,  territory  and  taxation  com- 
bined ;  a  mixed  system,  which  excluded  the  true  idea 
of  personal  equality.  But  at  the  peaceful  —  almost 
bloodless  —  revolution  of  1848,  under  the  lead  of 
Lamartine,  a  National  Assembly  was  convened  on  the 
simple  basis  of  population,  and  one  representative  was 
allowed  for  every  forty  thousand  inhabitants.  Here 
again  is  the  Rule  of  Three  ;  but  the  idea  originally 
came  from  our  country. 

Mr.  HALLETT.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Marsh- 
field  allow  me  to  make  one  more  inquiry  ? 


216  THE    REPRESENTATIVE    SYSTEM 

Mr.  STJMNER.     Certainly. 

Mr.  HALLETT.  Do  I  understand  the  gentleman  to 
say  that  the  Rule  of  Three  was  applied  to  representa- 
tion in  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  SUMNER.  I  mean  to  say,  that  the  representa- 
tion in  the  lower  House  of  Congress  was  apportioned 
according  to  numbers  ;  and  this  is  the  Rule  of  Three. 
The  gentleman  has  in  mind,  perhaps,  the  anomalous 
exception  with  reference  to  Slavery. 

Mr.  HALLETT.  No,  sir.  I  do  not  refer  to  that  at 
all.  The  first  apportionment  of  representation  by 
Congress,  was  made  by  applying  the  divisor  of  thirty 
thousand,  which  was  the  ratio  of  representation,  to  the 
whole  population  of  the  United  States.  That  bill  was 
vetoed  by  General  Washington,  upon  the  ground  that 
the  Constitution  required  that  representation  should  be 
apportioned  among  the  States  according  to  their  respec- 
tive numbers,  and  that  it  did  not  allow  of  a  numerical 
representation  of  all  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
I  ask  the  gentleman  if  that  rule  was  the  Rule  of 
Three? 

Mr.  STTMNER.  The  learned  gentleman  is  substan- 
tially right  in  his  statement ;  but  he  will  pardon  me  if 
I  say,  that  it  does  not  interfere  with  my  proposition. 
The  language  of  the  Constitution  is  explicit :  "  repre- 
sentatives shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several 
States  according  to  their  respective  numbers."  This  is 
the  rule ;  I  call  it  the  Rule  of  Three.  There  arc 
minor  details  in  its  operation,  arising  from  Slavery,  and 
from  the  division  into  States,  on  which  I  do  not  dwell, 
as  they  do  not  interfere  with  its  paramount  principle, 
and  I  am  admonished  to  proceed. 

A  practical  question  here  arises,  whether  this  rule 


AND    ITS    PROPER    BASIS.  217 

should  be  applied  to  the  whole  body  of  population,  in- 
cluding women,  children,  and  unnaturalized  foreigners, 
or  whether  it  should  be  applied  to  those  only  who  ex- 
ercise the  electoral  franchise  ;  in  other  words,  to  voters. 
It  is  probable  that  the  rule  would  generally  produce 
nearly  similar  results,  in  both  cases  ;  as  the  voters, 
except  in  a  few  places,  would  bear  a  uniform  propor- 
tion to  the  whole  population.  But  it  will  be  easy  to 
determine  what  the  principle  of  the  Representative 
System  requires.  Since  the  object  of  the  system  is 
to  provide  a  practical  substitute  for  the  meetings  of 
the  people,  it  should  be  founded  in  just  proportion  on 
the  numbers  of  those  who,  according  to  our  Constitu- 
tion, can  take  part  in  those  meetings ;  that  is,  upon  the 
qualified  voters.  The  representative  body  should  be  a 
minature  or  abridgment  of  the  electoral  body  ;  in  other 
words,  of  those  allowed  to  participate  in  public  affairs. 
If  this  conclusion  needs  authority,  it  may  be  found  in 
the  words  of  Mr.  Madison,  in  the  Debates  on  the 
Federal  Constitution.  "  It  has  been  very  properly 
observed,"  he  says,  "  that  representation  was  an  ex- 
pedient by  which  the  meeting  of  the  people  themselves 
was  rendered  unnecessary,  and  that  representatives 
ought,  therefore,  to  hear  a  proportion  to  the  votes  which 
their  constituents,  if  convened,  would  respectively  have." 
—  [Madison's  Debates,  vol.  ii.  p.  1103.] 

The  Rule  of  Three,  then,  applied  to  voters,  seems 
to  me  sound ;  but  whether  applied  to  voters  or  pop- 
ulation, it  is  the  true  rule  of  representation,  and  stands 
on  adamantine  principles.  In  my  view,  it  commends 
itself  so  obviously,  so  instinctively,  to  the  natural  rea- 
son, that  I  do  not  feel  disposed  to  dwell  upon  it.  But 
since  it  has  been  called  in  question,  I  shall  be  excused 
19 


218 


THE    REPRESENTATIVE    SYSTEM 


for  saying  a  few  words  in  its  behalf.  Its  advantages 
present  themselves  in  several  aspects. 

First.  And  I  put  in  the  front  its  constant  and 
equal  operation  throughout  the  Commonwealth.  Under 
it,  every  man  will  have  a  representative  each  year  ;  and 
every  man  will  have  the  same  representative  power  as 
every  other  man.  In  this  respect,  it  carries  out  a 
darling  idea  of  our  institutions,  which  cannot  be  dis- 
owned without  weakening  their  foundations.  It  gives 
to  the  great  principle  of  human  equality  a  new  expan- 
sion and  application.  It  makes  all  men,  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  electoral  franchise,  whatever  be  their 
diversities  of  intelligence,  of  education,  or  of  wealth,  or 
wheresoever  they  may  be  within  the  borders  of  the 
Commonwealth,  in  small  town  or  in  populous  city, 
absolutely  equal  at  the  ballot-box. 

I  know  that  there  are  persons,  sir,  who  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  assail  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  equality  of  men, 
as  enunciated  in  our  Declaration  of  Independence,  and 
in  our  Bill  of  Rights.  In  this  work  two  eminent 
statesmen,  of  our  own  country,  and  of  England,  have 
led  the  way.  But  it  seems  to  me,  that  if  they  had 
chosen  to  comprehend  the  meaning  of  the  principle, 
much,  if  not  all  of  their  objection  would  have  been 
removed.  It  is  a  palpable  truth,  that  men  are  not  born 
equal  in  physical  strength  or  in  mental  capacities ;  in 
beauty  of  form  or  health  of  body.  These  mortal  cloaks 
of  flesh  differ,  as  do  these  worldly  garments.  Diver- 
sity or  inequality  in  these  respects,  is  the  law  of  crea- 
tion. But  as  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  and  as 
all  are  equal  in  his  sight,  whether  rich  or  poor,  whether 
dwellers  in  cities  or  in  fields,  so  are  all  equal  in  natural 
rights ;  and  it  is  a  childish  sophism  —  of  which  no 


AXD    ITS    PUOFER    BASIS.  219 

gentleman  in  this  Convention  is  guilty  —  to  adduce  in 
argument  against  them  the  physical  or  mental  inequal- 
ities by  which  men  are  characterized.  Now,  I  do  not 
pretend  to  class  the  electoral  franchise  among  those 
inherent,  natural  rights,  which  are  common  to  the 
human  family,  without  distinction  of  age,  sex  or  resi- 
dence ;  but  I  do  say,  that  from  the  equality  of  men, 
which  we  so  proudly  proclaim,  we  may  derive  a  just 
rule  for  its  exercise.  For  myself,  I  accept  this  prin- 
ciple, and  just  so  far  and  just  so  soon  as  possible,  I 
would  be  guided  by  it  in  the  system  of  Representation. 
But  there  are  other  reasons  still. 

Secondly.  The  rule  of  Three,  as  applied  to  repre- 
sentation, is  commended  by  its  simplicity.  It  super- 
sedes all  the  painful  calculations  to  which  we  have 
been  driven,  the  long  agony  of  mathematics  as  it  was 
called  by  my  friend  over  the  way  [Mr.  Giles],  and  is 
as  easy  in  its  application  as  it  seems  to  me  to  be  just. 

Thirdly.  This  rule  is  founded  in  nature,  and  not  in 
art ;  on  natural  bodies,  and  not  on  artificial  bodies ; 
on  men,  and  not  on  corporations ;  on  souls,  and  not  on 
petty  geographical  lines.  On  this  account  it  may  be 
called  a  natural  rule,  and  when  once  established,  will 
become  fixed  and  permanent,  beyond  all  change  or 
desire  of  change. 

And,  fourthly,  this  rule  removes,  to  every  possible 
extent,  those  opportunities  of  political  partiality  and 
calculation  in  the  adjustment  of  the  representation, 
which  are  naturally  incident  to  any  departure  from 
precise  rule.  It  was  beautifully  said  of  law  by  the 
greatest  intellect  of  Antiquity,  that  it  is  mind  without 
passion,  and  this  very  definition  I  would  extend  to  a 
rule  which,  with  little  intervention  from  human  will, 


220  THE    BEPKESEXTATIVE    SYSTEM 

is  graduated  by  numbers,  passionless  as  law  itself 
in  the  conception  of  Aristotle.  The  object  of  free 
institutions  is,  to  withdraw  all  concerns  of  State,  so 
far  as  practicable,  from  human  discretion,  and  place 
them  under  the  shield  of  human  principles,  to  the  end, 
according  to  the  words  of  our  Constitution,  that  there 
may  be  a  government  of  laws,  and  not  of  men.  But, 
just  in  proportion  as  we  depart  from  precise  rule,  it 
becomes  a  government  of  men,  and  not  of  laws. 

Such  considerations  as  these,  thus  briefly  expressed, 
seem  to  vindicate  this  rule  of  representation.  But  let 
me  not  forget  the  arguments  adduced  against  it. 
These  have  assumed  two  distinct  forms ;  one  is 
founded  on  the  character  of  our  towns  and  the  impor- 
tance of  preserving  their  influence ;  the  other  is 
founded  on  the  alleged  necessity  of  counteracting  the 
centralization  of  power  in  the  cities.  Now,  of  these 
in  their  order. 

And,  first,  of  the  importance  of  preserving  our  towns. 
Sir,  I  yield  to  no  man  in  appreciation  of  the  good  done 
by  these  free  municipalities.  The  able  member  for 
Erving  [Mr.  Griswold],  who  began  this  debate,  the 
eloquent  member  for  Berlin  [Mr.  Boutwell],  and  my 
excellent  friend  of  many  years,  the  accomplished 
member  for  Manchester  [Mr.  Dana],  in  the  masterly 
speeches  which  they  have  addressed  to  the  Convention, 
have  attributed  no  good  influence  to  the  towns  which 
I  do  not  recognize  also.  With  them  I  agree,  cordially, 
that  the  towns  in  Massachusetts,  like  the  municipalities 
of  Switzerland,  have  been  schools  and  nurseries  of 
freedom ;  and  that  in  these  small  bodies,  men  were 
early  disciplined  in  those  primal  duties  of  citizenship, 
which,  on  a  grander  scale,  have  been  made  the  iuunda- 


AND    ITS    PBOPEtt    BASIS.  221 

tion  of  our  whole  political  fabric.  But,  I  cannot  go 
so  far  as  to  attribute  this  remarkable  influence  to  the 
assumed  fact,  that  each  town  by  itself  was  entitled  to 
a  representative  in  the  legislative  body.  At  the  time 
of  the  Revolution,  this  was  the  prerogative  of  most 
towns,  though  not  of  all ;  but  it  cannot  be  regarded 
as  the  distinctive,  essential,  life-giving  attribute.  At 
most  it  was  only  an  incident. 

Sir,  the  true  glory  of  the  towns  then  was,  that  they 
were  organized  on  the  principles  of  self-government, 
at  a  time  when  these  principles  were  not  generally  re- 
cognized ;  that  each  town  by  itself  was  a  little  republic, 
where  the  whole  body  of  freemen  were  voters,  with 
powers  of  local  legislation,  taxation  and  administra- 
tion, and,  especially,  with  the  power  to  choose  their 
own  head  and  all  subordinate  magistrates.  Sir,  the 
boroughs  of  England  have  possessed  the  power  to  send 
a  member  —  often  two  members  —  to  Parliament ; 
but  this  has  not  saved  them  from  corruption  ;  nor  has 
any  person  attributed  to  them,  though  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  this  franchise,  the  influence  which  has  pro- 
ceeded from  our  municipalities.  And  the  reason  is 
obvious.  They  were  organized  under  charters  from 
the  crown,  by  which  the  local  government  was  vested 
—  not  in  the  whole  body  of  freeman  —  but  in  small 
councils,  or  select  classes,  originally  nominated  by  the 
crown,  and  ever  afterwards  renewing  themselves.  No 
such  abuse  prevailed  in  our  municipalities  ;  and  this 
political  health  at  home,  sir,  and  not  the  incident  of 
exclusive  representation  in  a  distant  Legislature,  has 
been  the  secret  of  their  strength.  This  I  would  ever 
cherish. 

And  this  brings  me,  in  the  next  place,  to  the  objec- 
19* 


222  THE    EEPBESENTATIYE    SYSTEM 

tion  founded  on  centralization  of  power  in  the  cities. 
It  is  said  that  wealth,  business,  population  and  talent, 
in  its  multitudinous  forms,  all  tend  to  the  cities,  and 
that  the  excessive  influence  of  this  concentrated  mass, 
quickened  by  an  active  press,  by  facilities  of  concert, 
and  by  social  appliances  ought  to  be  counterbalanced 
by  an  allotment  to  the  towns  of  a  representative  weight 
beyond  their  proportion  of  numbers.  Now,  sir,  while 
confessing  and  regretting  the  present  predominance  of 
the  cities,  I  must  be  permitted  to  question  the  propriety 
of  the  proposed  remedy.  And  here,  as  I  differ  in  some 
respects  from  friends  on  both  sides,  I  make  an  appeal 
for  a  candid  judgment  of  what  I  shall  candidly  say. 

I  would  not  be  unjust  to  cities.  But  no  student  of 
history  can  fail  to  perceive  that  they  have  performed 
different  parts  at  different  stages  of  the  world.  In 
antiquity,  they  were  the  acknowledged  centres  of 
power,  often  of  tyranny.  But  in  the  middle  ages, 
they  became  the  home  of  freedom,  and  the  bridle  to 
feudalism.  For  this  service  they  should  be  gratefully 
remembered.  And  now  there  is  another  change.  The 
armed  feudalism  is  overthrown ;  but  it  is  impossible 
not  to  see  that  it  has  yielded  to  a  commercial  feudal- 
ism, whose  seat  is  in  the  cities,  and  which,  in  its  way, 
is  hardly  less  selfish  and  exacting  than  the  feudalism 
of  the  iron  hand.  My  friend,  the  member  for  Man- 
chester [Mr.  Dana],  was  clearly  right  when  he  said, 
that  the  Boston  of  to-day  is  not  the  Boston  of  our 
fathers.  But  let  me  be  understood.  I  make  no  im- 
peachment of  individuals  ;  but  simply  indicate  those 
combined  influences  proceeding  from  the  potent  Spirit 
of  Trade  —  alas !  how  unlike  that  Spirit  of  the  Lord, 
where  is  liberty !  —  which  are  not  inconsistent  with 


AND    IIS    PKOPEK    BASIS.  223 

the  most  exalted  individual  worth.  I  think,  while 
confessing  the  abounding  charities  of  the  rich  men, 
whose  eulogy  we  have  heard  more  than  once  in  this 
debate,  it  must  he  admitted  that  those  pure  princi- 
ples which  are  the  breath  of  the  republic,  now  find 
their  truest  atmosphere  in  calm  retreats,  away  from 
the  strife  of  gain,  and  the  hot  pavements  of  crowded 
streets.  Sir,  it  is  not  only  when  we  look  upon  the 
fields,  hills  and  valleys,  clad  in  verdure,  and  shining 
with  silver  lake  or  rivulet,  that  we  may  be  ready  to 
exclaim :  — 

"  God  made  the  country,  and  man  made  the  town." 

But,  sir,  while  maintaining  these  opinions,  I  cannot 
admit  the  argument,  that  the  centralized  power  of  the 
cities  may  be  counteracted  by  degrading  them  in  the 
scale  of  representation.  This  cannot  be  purposely 
done  without  departing  from  fundamental  principles, 
and  without  overthrowing  the  presiding  doctrine  of 
personal  equality.  Cities  are  but  congregations  of 
men ;  and  men  exert  influence  in  various  ways  ;  by 
the  accident  of  position ;  by  the  accident  of  intelli- 
gence ;  by  the  accident  of  property ;  by  the  accident 
of  birth ;  and  lastly,  by  the  vote.  It  is  the  vote  only 
which  is  not  an  accident ;  and  it  should  be  the  boast 
of  Massachusetts,  that  all  men,  whatever  may  be  their 
accidents,  are  equal  in  their  votes.  [[Here  the  hammer 
of  the  President  fell,  as  the  hour  expired ;  but  by 
ananimous  consent,  Mr.  Sumner  proceeded.]  The  idea 
of  property  as  a  check  upon  numbers,  which,  on  a 
former  occasion,  found  such  favor  in  this  hall,  is  now 
rejected  in  the  adjustment  of  our  Representative  Sys- 
tem. And,  sir,  I  venture  to  predict  that  the  propo- 


224  THE    KEPRESENTATIVE    SYSTEM 

sition,  newly  broached  in  this  Commonwealth,  to  re- 
strain the  cities  by  a  curtailment  of  their  just  represen- 
tative power,  will  hereafter  be  as  little  regarded. 

II.  Mr.  President,  such  is  what  I  have  to  say  on 
the  history  and  principles  of  the  Representative  System, 
particularly  in  the  light  of  American  institutions,  and 
this  brings  me  to  the  practical  question  at  this  moment. 
I  cannot  doubt  that  the  District  System,  as  it  is  gener- 
ally called,  whereby  the  representative  power  will  be 
distributed  in  just  proportion,  according  to  the  Rule 
of  Three,  among  the  voters  of  the  Commonwealth,  is 
the  true  system,  destined  at  no  distant  day  to  prevail. 
And,  gladly,  would  I  see  this  Convention  hasten  the 
day  by  presenting  it  to  the  people  for  adoption  in  the 
organic  law.  To  this  end  I  have  striven  by  my  votes. 
But,  sir,  I  am  not  blind  to  what  has  passed.  The 
votes  already  taken  show  that  the  Convention  is  not 
prepared  for  this  change,  and  I  am  assured  by  gentle- 
men more  familiar  with  public  sentiment  than  I  can 
pretend  to  be,  that  the  people  are  not  yet  prepared 
for  it. 

And  thus,  sir,  we  are  brought  to  the  position  occu- 
pied successively  by  the  Conventions  of  1780  and  1820, 
each  of  which,  though  containing  warm  partisans  of 
the  District  System,  shrank  from  its  adoption  ;  as  in 
Virginia,  the  early  recommendation  of  Jefferson,  and 
his  vehement  support  at  a  later  day,  have  been  power- 
less to  produce  this  important  amendment.  John 
Lowell,  who  appeared  at  the  bar  of  the  Massachusetts 
Legislature  in  1 776,  to  vindicate  the  principle  of  equality 
in  representation,  and  Theophilus  Parsons,  the  author 
of  the  powerful  tract  which  proposed  to  found  the 


AND    ITS    PBOPEB   BASIS.  225 

Representative  System  on  the  Rule  of  Three,  were 
both  members  of  the  first  Convention ;  and,  I  know  not 
if  the  District  System  has  since  had  any  abler  defenders. 
To  these  I  might  add  the  great  name  of  John  Adams, 
who  had  early  pleaded  for  equality  of  representation, 
and  had  declared  in  words  adopted  by  the  Essex  Con- 
vention, that  the  Representative  Assembly  should  be 
an  exact  portrait  in  miniature  of  the  people  at  large. 
—  (Works,  Vol.  iv.,  pp.  186,  195,  205.)  In  the  Con- 
vention of  1820,  the  District  System  was  cherished  and 
openly  extolled  by  a  distinguished  jurist,  at  that  time 
a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, — 
Joseph  Story,  —  whose  present  fame  gives  additional 
importance  to  his  opinions.  And  yet,  the  desire  of 
these  men  failed.  The  corporate  representation  of 
towns  was  preserved,  and  the  District  System  pro- 
nounced impracticable.  In  the  address  put  forth  by 
the  Convention  of  1780,  and  signed  by  its  President, 
James  Bowdoin,  these  words  may  be  found  :  — 

"  You  will  observe  that  we  have  resolved  that  representatives 
ought  to  be  founded  on  the  principle  of  equality  ;  but  it  cannot 
be  understood  thereby,  that  each  town  in  the  Commonwealth 
shall  have  weight  and  importance  in  a  just  proportion  to  its 
numbers  and  property.  An  exact  representation  would  be  im- 
practicable, even  in  a  system  of  government  arising  from  the 
state  of  nature,  and  much  more  so  in  a  state  already  divided 
into  nearly  three  hundred  corporations." 

The  Convention  seem  to  have  recognized  the  theoretic 
fitness  of  an  "  exact  representation ;  "  but  did  not 
regard  it  as  feasible  in  a  State  already  divided  into 
nearly  three  hundred  corporations.  In  the  Convention 
of  1820,  Joseph  Story,  who  has  been  already  quoted 
by  my  eloquent  friend  [Mr.  Choate],  used  language 


which,  though  not  so  strong  as  that  of  the  early  address, 
yet  has  the  same  result :  — 

"  In  the  Select  Committee,  I  was  in  favor  of  a  plan  of  repre- 
sentation in  the  House  founded  on  population,  as  the  most  just 
and  equal  in  its  operation.  I  still  retain  that  opinion.  There 
were  serious  objections  against  this  system,  and  it  was  believed  by 
others  that  the  towns  could  not  be  brought  to  consent  to  yield 
up  the  corporate  privileges  of  representation  which  had  been  en- 
joyed so  long,  and  were  so  intimately  connected  with  their  pride 
and  their  interests.  I  felt  constrained,  therefore,  with  great  re- 
luctance to  yield  up  a  favorite  plan.  I  have  lived  long  enough  to 
know,  that  in  any  question  of  government,  something  is  to  be 
yielded  up  on  all  sides.  Conciliation  and  compromise  lie  at  the 
origin  of  every  free  government ;  and  the  question  never  was, 
and  never  can  be,  what  is  absolutely  best,  but  what  is  relatively 
wise,  just  and  expedient.  I  have  not  hesitated,  therefore,  to 
support  the  plan  of  the  Select  Committee  as  one  that,  on  the 
whole,  was  the  best  that,  under  existing  circumstances,  could  be 
obtained." 

Sir,  I  am  not  insensible  to  these  considerations,  nor 
to  the  authority  of  these  examples.  A  division  of  the 
State  into  districts  would  be  a  change,  in  conformity 
with  abstract  principles,  which  would  interfere  with 
the  existing  opinions,  habitudes  and  prejudices  of  the 
towns,  all  of  which  must  be  respected.  A  change  so 
important  in  its  character,  cannot  be  advantageously 
made,  unless  supported  by  the  permanent  feelings  and 
convictions  of  the  people.  Institutions  are  formed 
from  within,  and  not  from  without.  They  spring  from 
custom  and  popular  faith,  silently  operating  with  inter- 
nal power,  and  not  from  the  imposed  will  of  a  law- 
giver. And  our  present  duty  here,  at  least  on  this 
question,  may  be,  in  some  measure,  satisfied,  if  we  aid 
this  growth. 

Two  great  schools  of  jurisprudence,  for  a  while, 


AND    ITS    PEOPEK    BASIS.  227 

divided  the  learned  mind  of  Germany ;  one  known  as 
the  Historic,  the  other  as  the  Didactic.  The  question 
between  them  was  similar  to  that  now  before  the 
Convention.  The  first  regarded  all  laws  and  institu- 
tions as  the  growth  of  custom  under  the  constant  in- 
fluences of  history ;  the  other  insisted  upon  giving  to 
them,  by  positive  legislation,  a  form  in  conformity  with 
abstract  reason.  It  is  clear  that  both  were,  in  a  mea- 
sure, right.  No  law-giver  or  statesman  can  disregard 
either  history  or  abstract  reason.  He  must  contem- 
plate both.  He  will  faithfully  study  the  Past,  and 
will  recognize  its  treasures  and  traditions ;  but,  with 
equal  fidelity,  he  will  set  his  face  towards  the  Future, 
where  all  institutions  shall,  at  last,  be  in  harmony 
with  truth. 

I  have  been  encouraged  to  believe  in  the  practica- 
bility of  the  District  System,  by  its  conformity  with 
reason,  and  by  seeing  how  naturally  it  went  into  oper- 
ation under  the  ^Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
But  there  is  a  difference  between  that  case  and  the 
present.  A  new  Government  was  then  founded,  with 
new  powers,  applicable  to  a  broad  expanse  of  country ; 
but  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts  was  little  more 
than  a  continuation  of  pre-existing  usages  and  institu- 
tions, with  all  dependence  upon  royalty  removed.  This 
distinction  may  help  us  now.  If  the  country  were 
absolutely  new,  with  no  embarrassments  from  existing 
corporate  rights  —  claims  I  would  rather  call  them  — 
it  might  easily  be  arranged,  according  to  the  most 
approved  theory,  as  Philadelphia  was  originally  laid 
out  by  its  great  founder,  on  the  model  of  the  German 
city  which  he  had  seen  in  his  youth.  But  to  bring 
our  existing  system  into  symmetry  and  to  lay  it  out 


THE    BEPKESEXTATIYE    SYSTEM 

anew,  would  seem  to  be  a  task  —  at  least  I  am  reluct- 
antly led  to  this  conclusion  by  what  I  have  heard  here 
—  not  unlike  that  of  rebuilding  Boston,  and  of  shaping 
its  compact  mass  of  crooked  streets  into  the  regular 
rectangular  forms  of  the  city  of  Penn.  And  yet  this 
is  not  impossible.  "With  each  day,  by  demolishing 
ancient  houses  and  widening  ancient  ways,  changes  are 
made,  which  tend  to  this  result. 

Sir,  we  must  recognize  the  existing  condition  of 
things,  remedy  all  practical  grievances,  so  far  as  pos- 
sible, and  set  our  faces  towards  the  true  system.  We 
must  act  in  the  Present ;  but  be  mindful  also  of  the 
Future.  There  are  proper  occasions  for  compromise, 
as  most  certainly  there  are  rights  which  are  beyond 
compromise.  But  the  Representative  System  is  an 
expedient  or  device,  for  ascertaining  the  popular  will, 
and  though  well  satisfied  that  this  can  be  best  founded 
on  numbers,  I  would  not  venture  to  say,  in  the  present 
light  of  political  science,  that  the  right  of  each  man  to 
an  equal  representation,  according  to  the  Rule  of 
Three  and  without  regard  to  existing  institutions  or 
controlling  usages,  is  of  that  inherent  and  lofty  char- 
acter—  like  the  God-given  right  to  life  or  liberty  — 
which  admits  of  no  compromise. 

Several  grievances  exist,  which  will  be  removed  by 
the  proposed  amendments.  There  is  one  which  I  had 
hoped  would  disappear,  but  which  is  the  necessary 
incident  of  corporate  representation ;  I  mean  the  un- 
wieldy size  of  the  House. 

It  is  generally  said,  that  a  small  body  is  more  open 
to  bribery  and  corruption  than  a  large  body  ;  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  I  have  heard  it  asserted,  that  the  larger 
is  more  exposed  than  the  smaller.  I  put  this  consider- 


AND   ITS   PBOPEB,   BASIS.  229 

ation  aside.  My  objection  to  a  large  House  is,  that  it 
is  inconvenient  for  the  dispatch  of  public  business. 
There  is  a  famous  saying  of  Cardinal  de  Retz,  that 
every  assembly,  of  more  than  one  hundred,  is  a  mob  ; 
and  Lord  Chesterfield  applied  this  same  term  to  the 
British  House  of  Commons.  This  body,  at  present, 
nominally  has  six  hundred  and  fifty-five  members. 
It  is  called,  by  Lord  Brougham,  "preposterously  large," 
but  a  quorum  for  business  is  forty  only ;  and  it  is  only 
on  rare  occasions  of  political  importance,  that  its 
benches  are  completely  occupied.  The  House  of 
Lords,  nominally,  has  four  hundred  and  forty-seven 
members ;  but  a  quorum  in  this  body  consists  of  three 
only  ;  and  much  of  its  business  is  transacted  in  a  very 
thin  attendance. 

The  experience  of  Congress,  and  also  of  other  States, 
points  to  a  reduction  of  our  present  number.  Indeed, 
for  many  years,  this  was  a  general  desire  through  the 
State.  In  the  earliest  colonial  days,  every  town  was 
allowed  three  deputies  ;  but  in  five  years  the  number, 
on  reaching  thirty-three,  was  reduced  to  two  for  each. 
At  a  later  day,  in  1694,  a  great  contest  in  the  House 
was  decided  by  a  vote  of  twenty-six  against  twenty- 
four.  In  the  agitating  period  between  1 762  and  1 773, 
covering  the  controversies  which  heralded  the  Revolu- 
tion, the  House  contained  about  one  hundred  and  ten. 
Only  on  one  occasion,  the  magnitude  of  the  interest  is 
said  by  Governor  Hutchinson  to  have  drawn  together 
one  hundred  and  thirty.  At  the  last  session  of  the 
Provincial  Legislature,  in  May,  1774,  when  the  revo- 
lutionary conflict  was  at  hand,  the  complete  returns  of 
the  journals  show  one  hundred  and  forty ;  and  in 
1776,  there  was  a  House  of  two  hundred  and  sixty. 
20 


230  THE    REPRESENTATIVE    SYSTEM 

But  this  "  enormous  and  very  unwieldy  size,"  as  it 
•was  then  called,  was  assigned  as  a  reason  for  a  new 
Constitution.  I  regret  that  we  cannot  profit  by  this 
experience.  A  House  of  two  hundred  and  fifty,  or, 
since  we  are  accustomed  to  large  congregations,  of 
three  hundred  at  most,  would  be  an  improvement  on 
the  present  system. 

But,  there  are  two  proposed  improvements  which  I 
fcail  with  satisfaction  ;  one  relates  to  the  small  towns, 
and  the  other  to  the  cities.  The  small  towns  will  have 
a  more  constant  representation,  and  this  of  itself  is  an 
approach  to  the  true  principle  of  representation,  which 
should  be  constant  as  well  as  equal.  The  cities  will 
be  divided  into  districts,  and  this  I  regard  of  two-fold 
importance  —  first,  as  the  beginning  of  a  true  system ; 
and  secondly,  as  reducing  the  power,  which  the  cities, 
by  the  large  number  of  their  representatives,  chosen  by 
the  general  ticket,  now  exercise. 

A  respected  gentleman,  now  in  my  eye,  has  re- 
minded me  that  in  boyhood,  his  attention  was  ar- 
rested in  this  House  by  what  was  called  the  Boston 
seat,  reserved  exclusively  for  the  Boston  members, 
who  sat  together,  on  cushions,  while  other  members 
were  left  to  such  accommodations  as  they  could  find 
on  bare  benches.  This  discrimination  ceased  long  ago. 
But  it  seems  to  me  that  this  reserved  and  cushioned 
seat  is  typical  of  another  discrimination,  which  Boston, 
in  common  with  the  cities,  still  enjoys.  Sir,  in  voting 
for  forty-four  representatives,  the  elector  in  Boston  ex- 
ercises a  representative  power  transcending  far  that  of 
electors  in  the  country  ;  and  the  majority  which  rules 
Boston  and  determines  the  whole  delegation,  exercises 
a  representative  power  transcending  far  that  of  any 


•     ;  AND    ITS    PKOPEE    BASIS.  231 

similar  number  in  the  Commonwealth.  This  is  appa- 
rent on  the  bare  statement,  as  forty-four  sticks  are 
stronger  in  one  compact  bundle,  than  when  apart  or 
in  small  parcels.  Thus,  while  other  counties  are 
divided,  the  delegation  from  Boston  is  united.  In  all 
political  contests,  it  is  like  the  well-knit  Macedonian 
phalanx,  or  the  iron  front  of  the  Roman  legion,  in 
comparison  with  the  disconnected,  individual  warriors, 
against  whom  they  were  matched.  But  this  abuse  is 
to  be  removed ;  and  here  is  the  beginning  —  I  had 
almost  said  the  inauguration  —  of  a  true  electoral 
equality  in  our  Commonwealth. 

And  now,  in  conclusion,  while  thanking  gentlemen 
for  the  kind  attention  with  which  they  have  honored 
me,  let  me  express  briefly  the  result  to  which  I  have 
come.  I  have  openly  declared  my  convictions  with 
regard  to  the  District  System,  and  in  accordance  with 
these,  have  recorded  my  votes  in  this  Convention. 
These  votes,  which  reveal  my  inmost  desires  on  this 
matter,  I  would  not  change.  But  the  question  is  not 
now  between  the  District  System,  which  I  covet  so 
much  for  Massachusetts,  and  the  proposed  amend- 
ments ;  but  between  these  amendments  and  the  exist- 
ing system.  On  this  issue  I  decide  without  hesitation. 
I  shall  vote,  sir,  for  the  propositions  of  amendment 
now  before  the  Convention,  should  they  come  to  a 
question  on  their  final  passage ;  not  because  they 
are  all  that  I  desire  ;  not  because  they  seem  to  satisfy 
the  requirements  of  principles  which  I  cannot  deny ; 
not  because  they  constitute  a  permanent  adjustment 
of  this  difficult  question  ;  but  because,  they  are  the 
best  which  I  can  now  obtain  ;  because  they  reform 
grievances  of  the  existing  system ;  and,  because, 


232  THE    EEPBESENTATIVE    SYSTEM    ETC. 

they  begin  a  change,  which  can  end  only  in  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  Representative  System,  founded  in 
reality,  as  in  name,  on  equality.  Their  adoption 
will  be  a  triumph  of  conciliation  and  harmony,  and  will 
furnish  new  testimony  to  the  well-tempered  spirit  of 
our  institutions, 

"  Where  jarring  interests,  reconciled,  create 
The  according  music  of  a  well  mixed  State." 


BILLS  OF  RIGHTS ;  THEIR  HISTORY  AND  POLICY. 

SPEECH  ON  THE  REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  BILL 
OF  RIGHTS,  IN  THE  CONVENTION  TO  REVISE  AND  AMEND  THE 
CONSTITUTION  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  25TH  JULY,  1853. 


As  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Bill  of  Rights,  Mr. 
Sumner  submitted  a  Report,  on  which,  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  he  spoke  as  follows  : 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  :  As  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
the  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights,  it  belongs  to  me  to 
introduce  and  explain  their  Report.  It  will  be  per- 
ceived that  it  is  brief  and  proposes  no  important 
changes.  But  in  justice  to  the  distinguished  'gentle- 
men with  whom  I  had  the  honor  of  being  associated  on 
that  Committee,  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  suggest  that  the 
extent  of  their  labors  should  not  be  judged  by  this 
result.  It  appears  from  the  proceedings  of  the  Con- 
vention of  1820,  that  the  Committee  on  the  Bill  of 
Rights  at  that  time  sat  longer  than  any  other  Commit- 
tee. I  believe  that  the  same  Committee  in  the  present 
Convention  might  claim  the  same  pre-eminence.  Their 
records  show  twenty  different  sessions. 

At  these  sessions,  the  Preamble  and  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  in  its  thirty  different  propositions,  were  passed 
in  review  and  considered,  clause  by  clause ;  -the  various 

[233] 


234  BILLS    OF    EIGHTS  J 

orders  of  the  Convention,  amounting  to  twelve  in  num- 
ber; the  petitions  addressed  to  the  Convention  and 
referred  to  the  Committee ;  and  also  informal  proposi- 
tions from  members  of  the  Convention  and  others, 
were  considered ;  some  of  them  repeatedly  and  at 
length.  On  many  questions  there  was  a  decided  dif- 
ference of  opinion  and  on  a  few  the  Committee  was 
nearly  equally  divided.  But  after  the  best  consid- 
eration we  could  bestow  upon  them  in  our  protracted 
series  of  meetings,  it  was  found  that  the  few  simple 
propositions,  now  on  your  table,  were  all  upon  which 
a  majority  of  the  Committee  could  be  brought  to  unite. 
As  such  I  was  directed  to  present  them  to  the  Conven- 
tion. And  here,  sir,  admonished  by  the  lapse  of  time 
and  the  desire  to  close  these  proceedings,  I  might  be 
content  with  this  simple  statement. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  urgency  of  our  business,  I 
cannot  allow  the  opportunity  to  pass  —  indeed  I  should 
not  do  my  duty  —  without  attempting  for  a  brief  mo- 
ment to  show  the  origin  and  character  of  this  part  of 
our  Constitution.  In  this  way  we  may  learn  its  weight 
and  authority  and  appreciate  the  difficulty  and  delicacy 
of  any  change  in  its  substance  or  even  its  form.  I  will 
try  not  to  abuse  your  patience. 

The  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights,  like  the  rest  of 
our  Constitution,  were  from  the  pen  of  John  Adams ; 
among  whose  published  works  the  whole  document,  in 
its  original  draught,  may  be  found.  At  the  time  when 
he  rendered  this  important  service  to  his  native  Com- 
monwealth and  to  the  principles  of  free  institutions 
everywhere,  he  was  forty-five  years  of  age.  But  he 
was  not  unprepared.  The  natural  maturity  of  his 
powers  had  'been  enriched  by  the  well-ripened  fruit  of 


THEIE    HISTOBY    AND    POLICY.  235 

assiduous  study  and  of  an  active  life,  both  of  which 
concurred  in  him.  The  examples  of  Greece  and  Rome 
and  the  writings  of  Sidney  and  Locke  were  especially 
familiar  to  his  mind.  The  common  law  he  had  made 
his  own,  and  mastered  well  its  whole  arsenal  of  Free- 
dom. For  a  long  time  the  vigorous  and  unfailing 
partisan  of  the  liberal  cause  in  Boston,  throughout  its 
many  conflicts  ;  then  in  Congress,  whither  he  was 
transferred,  the  irresistible  champion  of  Independence  ; 
and  then  the  republican  representative  of  the  united 
but  still  struggling  Colonies  at  the  Court  of  France  ; 
in  the  brief  interval  between  his  two  foreign  missions, 
only  seven  days  after  landing  from  his  long  ocean 
voyage,  he  was  chosen  a  delegate  to  the  Constitutional 
Convention,  and  at  once  brought  all  his  varied  ex- 
perience, rare  political  culture  and  eminent  powers 
to  the  task  of  adjusting  the  frame- work  of  government 
for  Massachusetts.  As  his  work,  it  all  claims  our 
regard ;  and  no  part  bears  the  imprint  of  his  mind  so 
much  as  the  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights ;  nor  is  any 
other  part  authenticated  as  coming  so  exclusively  from 
him. 

At  the  time  of  its  first  adoption,  the  Massachusetts 
Bill  of  Rights  was  more  ample  in  its  provisions,  and 
more  complete  in  form,  than  any  similar  Declaration  in 
English  or  Colonial  history.  Glancing  at  its  predeces- 
sors, we  shall  learn  something  of  its  sources.  First 
came,  long  back  in  the  thirteenth  century,  Magna  Charta, 
with  its  generous  safeguards  of  Freedom,  wrung  from 
King  John  by  the  Barons  at  Runnymede.  From  time 
to  time  these  liberties  were  confirmed,  and,  after  an 
interval  of  centuries,  they  were  again  ratified,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  unhappy  reign  of  Charles  I.  by  a 


236  BILLS    OF    EIGHTS  J 

Parliamentary  Declaration,  to  which  the  monarch  as- 
sented, known  as  the  Petition  of  Right,  which,  in  its 
very  title,  reveals  the  humility  with  which  the  rights 
of  the  people  were  then  maintained.  And,  finally,  in  a 
different  tone  and  language,  at  the  revolution  of  1688, 
when  James  II.  was  driven  from  his  dominions,  a 
"  Declaration  of  the  true,  ancient  and  indubitable 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  of  the  kingdom," 
familiarly  known  as  the  Bill  of  Rights,  was  delivered 
by  the  Convention  Parliament  to  the  new  sovereigns, 
William  and  Mary,  and  embodied  in  the  Act  of  Settle- 
ment, by  virtue  of  which  they  sat  on  the  throne. 
These,  sir,  are  the  English  examples. 

Their  influence  was  not  restrained  to  England.  It 
crossed  the  ocean.  From  the  beginning  the  colonists 
were  tenacious  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  English- 
men, and,  at  various  times  and  in  various  forms,  de- 
clared them.  Connecticut,  as  early  as  1639  ;  Virginia 
in  1624  and  1676 ;  Pennsylvania  in  1682  ;  New  York 
in  1691;  —  and  I  might  mention  others  still  —  put 
forth  Declarations,  brief  and  meagre,  but  kindred  to 
those  of  the  mother  country.  In  the  colony  of  New 
Plymouth,  the  essential  principles  of  Magna  Charta 
were  proclaimed  in  1636,  under  the  name  of  the  General 
Fundamentals  ;  and  in  1672,  the  inhabitants  of  Massa- 
chusetts Bay  announced  in  words,  worthy  of  careful 
study,  that  "  the  free  fruition  of  such  Liberties,  Immu- 
nities, Privileges,  as  Humanity,  Civility,  and  Chris- 
tianity call  for,  as  due  to  every  man  in  his  place  and 
proportion,  without  impeachment  and  infringement, 
hath  ever  been  and  ever  will  be,  the  tranquillity  and 
stability  of  churches  and  Commonwealth,  and  the 


THEIK    HISIOKY    AND    POLICY.  237 

denial  or  deprival  thereof,  the  disturbance,  if  not  the 
ruin,  of  both." 

In  the  animated  discussions,  which  immediately 
preceded  the  revolution,  the  rights  and  liberties  of 
Englishmen  were  constantly  asserted  as  the  birth-right 
of  the  colonists.  This  was  often  done  by  formal  reso- 
lutions or  declarations,  couched  at  first  in  moderate 
phrase.  At  the  outrage  of  the  Stamp  Act,  a  Congress 
of  delegates  from  nine  States,  held  at  New  York  in 
October,  1765,  put  forth  a  series  of  resolution  entitled, 
"  Declaration  of  our  humble  opinion  respecting  the  most 
essential  rights  and  liberties  of  the  colonists."  The 
humility  of  this  language  may  recall  the  English  Peti- 
tion of  Right  under  Charles  I.  This  was  followed  in 
1774  by  the  Declaration  of  the  Continental  Congress, 
which,  in  another  tone  and  with  admirable  force,  arrays 
in  ten  different  propositions,  the  rights  which  "  by  the 
immutable  laws  of  nature,  the  principles  of  English 
liberty  and  the  several  charters  of  compacts"  belong 
to  "  the  inhabitants  of  the  English  colonies  in  North 
America," 

"  Time's  noblest  offspring  is  the  last ; " 

and  the  whole  colonial  series  was  aptly  closed  by 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  declared  not 
merely  the  rights  of  Englishmen,  but  the  rights  of 
men. 

But  only  a  few  brief  weeks  before  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  Virginia,  taking  the  lead  of  her  sister 
colonies,  had  established  a  Constitution  to  which  was 
prefixed  an  elaborate  Bill  of  Rights.  This  remarkable 
document,  which  has  been  the  grand  precedent  for  the 
whole  country,  marks  an  epoch  in  political  history. 


238  BILLS    OF    EIGHTS  ; 

In  all  English  Declarations  of  Rights  and  even  in  those 
of  the  Colonies,  unless  we  except  the  early  declaration 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  stress  had 
been  laid  upon  the  liberties  and  privileges  of  English- 
men. The  rights  claimed  even  by  the  Continental 
Congress  of  1774,  in  their  masculine  Declaration,  were 
the  rights  of  "  free  and  natural-born  subjects  within 
the  realm  of  England."  But  the  Virginia  Bill  of 
Rights,  standing  at  the  front  of  its  first  Constitution, 
discarded  all  narrow  title  from  mere  English  precedent, 
planted  itself  on  the  eternal  law  of  God,  above  every 
human  ordinance,  and  openly  proclaimed  that  "  all 
men  are  equally  free  and  independent ;  "  a  declaration, 
which  is  repeated,  though  in  other  language,  by  the 
Massachusetts  Bill  of  Rights. 

The  policy  of  Bills  of  Rights  has  been  sometimes 
called  in  question.  It  has  been  said  that  they  were 
originally  privileges  or  concessions  extorted  from  the 
King,  and,  though  expedient  in  a  monarchy,  are  of 
little  value  in  a  Republic.  As  late  as  1821,  in  the 
Convention  for  revising  the  Constitution  of  New  York, 
doubts  of  their  utility  were  openly  expressed  by  Mr. 
Van  Buren.  But  they  are  now  above  question.  Each 
new  State,  ending  with  California,  follows  the  example 
of  Virginia  and  Massachusetts,  and  places  its  Bill  of 
Rights  in  the  front  of  its  Constitution.  Nor  can  I 
doubt  that  much  good  is  done  by  this  frank  assertion 
of  fundamental  principles.  The  public  mind  is  in- 
structed ;  people  learn  to  know  their  rights ;  liberal 
institutions  are  confirmed ;  and  the  Constitution  is 
made  stable  in  the  hearts  of  the  community.  The 
provisions  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  are  lessons  of  political 
wisdom  and  anchors  of  liberty.  They  are  also  the 


THEIE    HISTOBY    AND    POLICY.  239 

constant  index  and  scourge  of  injustice  and  wrong. 
In  Massachusetts,  Slavery  itself  disappeared  before  the 
declaration  that  "  all  men  are  born  free  and  equal," 
interpreted  by  a  liberty-loving  Court. 

In  the  Convention  of  1 780,  the  Bill  of  Rights  formed 
a  prominent  subject  of  interest.  The  necessity  of  such 
a  safeguard  had  been  pressed  upon  the  people,  and  its 
absence  from  the  Constitution  of  1777,  was  unquestion- 
ably a  reason  for  the  rejection  of  that  ill-fated  effort. 
Indeed  this  Constitution  was  openly  opposed  because 
it  had  no  Bill  of  Rights.  In  the  array  of  objections  to 
it,  at  the  period,  was  the  following,  which  I  take  from 
an  important  contemporaneous  publication.  "  That  a 
Bill  of  Rights,  clearly  ascertaining  and  defining  the 
rights  of  conscience  and  that  security  of  person  and 
property,  which  every  member  of  the  State  hath  a  right 
to  expect  from  the  supreme  power  thereof,  ought  to  be 
settled  and  established  previous  to  the  ratification  of 
any  Constitution  for  the  State."  Accordingly,  at  the 
earliest  moment  after  the  organization  of  the  Conven- 
tion, a  motion  was  made  "  that  there  be  a  Declaration 
of  Rights  prepared  previous  to  the  framing  of  the 
Constitution  of  Government ;  "  and  this  motion,  after 
"  a  general  and  extensive  debate,"  prevailed  by  a 
nearly  unanimous  vote.  The  whole  number  present, 
as  returned  by  the  monitors,  was  two  hundred  and 
fifty- one,  of  whom  two  hundred  and  fifty  were  in  the 
affirmative.  By  this  triumphant  vote  did  the  early 
fathers  of  Massachusetts  manifest  their  watchfulness 
for  the  rights  of  the  people ;  and  there  is  good  reason 
to  believe  also,  that  among  the  motives  which  stimu- 
lated it,  was  a  determination  in  this  way  to  abolish 
Slavery.  The  Convention  then  resolved  "  to  proceed 


240  BILL    OF    EIGHTS  ; 

to  the  framing  a  new  Constitution  of  Government." 
A  grand  Committee  of  thirty  was  chosen  to  perform 
these  two  important  duties ;  and  this  Committee,  after 
extended  discussion,  entrusted  to  John  Adams  alone 
the  preparation  of  a  Declaration  of  Rights,  and  to  a 
Sub-Committee,  consisting  of  James  Bowdoin,  Samuel 
Adams  and  John  Adams,  the  duty  of  preparing  the 
Form  of  a  Constitution,  which  Sub-Committee  again 
delegated  the  task  to  John  Adams ;  so  that  to  the  pen 
of  this  illustrious  citizen,  we  are  indebted  primarily 
both  for  the  Declaration  of  Rights  and  the  Form  of 
the  Constitution. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  trace  most,  if  not  all,  of  the 
ideas  and  provisions  of  our  Preamble  and  Declaration 
of  Rights,  to  their  primitive  sources.  The  Preamble, 
wherein  the  body  politic  is  founded  on  the  fiction  of 
the  social  compact,  was  doubtless  inspired  by  the 
writings  of  Sidney  and  Locke,  and  by  the  English 
discussions  at  the  period  of  the  Revolution  of  1688, 
when  this  questionable  theory  did  good  service  in 
response  to  the  assumptions  of  Filmer,  and  as  a 
shield  against  arbitrary  power.  Of  the  different  pro- 
visions in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  some  are  in  the  very 
words  of  Magna  Charta ;  others  are  derived  from  the 
ancient  common  law,  the  Petition  of  Right  and  the 
Bill  of  Rights  of  1688,  while  no  less  than  sixteen 
may  be  found  substantially  in  the  Virginia  Bill  of 
Rights;  but  these  again  are  in  great  part  derived 
from  the  earlier  fountains. 

And  now,  sir,  you  have  before  you  for  revision 
and  amendment  this  early  work  of  our  Fathers.  I 


IHEIB.    HISTORY   AND    POLICY.  241 

do  not  stop  to  consider  its  peculiar  merits.  With 
satisfaction  I  might  point  to  special  safeguards  by 
which  our  rights  have  been  protected  against  usur- 
pations, whether  executive,  legislative  or  judicial. 
With  pride  I  might  dwell  on  those  words  which  ban- 
ished Slavery  from  our  soil,  and  rendered  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence  here  with  us  a  living  letter. 
But  the  hour  does  not  require  or  admit  any  such 
service.  You  have  a  practical  duty  which  I  seek 
to  promote ;  and  I  now  take  leave  of  the  whole  sub- 
ject, with  the  simple  remark,  that  a  document  pro- 
ceeding from  such  a  pen  —  drawn  from  such  sources 
—  with  such  an  origin  in  all  respects  —  speaking  so 
early  for  Human  Rights  —  and  now  for  more  than 
threescore  years  and  ten  a  household  Avord  to  the 
people  of  Massachusetts  —  should  be  touched  by  the 
Convention  only  with  extreme  care. 

21 


FINGER-POINT  FROM  PLYMOUTH  ROCK. 

SPEECH    AT    THE    PLYMOUTH    FESTIVAL    IN    COMMEMORATION    01 
THE   EMBARKATION   OF   THE   PILGRIMS,    1ST   AUGUST,    1853. 


The  President,  in  giving  the  next  toast,  said  they  had  already 
been  delighted  with  the  words  of  a  distinguished  member  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  They  were  favored  with  the  pres- 
ence of  another  ;  and  he  would  give  as  a  sentiment :  — 

"The  Senate  of  the  United  States,  —  The  concentrated  light 
of  the  stars  of  the  Union." 

Mr.  Sumner  responded  as  follows  :  — 

MB.  PRESIDENT.  —  You  bid  me  speak  for  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States.  But  I  cannot  forget  that  there 
is  another  voice  here,  of  classical  eloquence,  which 
might  more  fitly  render  this  service.  As  one  of  the 
humblest  members  of  that  body,  and  associated  with 
the  public  councils  for  a  brief  period  only,  I  should 
prefer  that  my  distinguished  colleague  [Mr.  Everett], 
whose  fame  is  linked  with  a  long  political  life,  should 
speak  for  it.  And  there  is  yet  another  here  [Mr. 
Hale],  who,  though  not  at  this  moment  a  member  of 
the  Senate,  has,  throughout  an  active  and  brilliant 
career,  marked  by  a  rare  combination  of  ability,  elo- 
quence, and  good  humor,  so  identified  himself  with 

[242] 


A    FIXGEK-POINI    FROM    PLYMOUTH    BOCK.       243 

it  in  the  public  mind,  that  he  might  well  speak  for  it 
always,  and  when  he  speaks  all  are  pleased  to  listen. 
But,  sir,  you  have  ordered  it  otherwise. 

From  the  tears  and  trials  at  Delft  Haven,  from  the 
deck  of  the  "  Mayflower,"  from  the  landing  at  Plym- 
outh Rock,  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  is 
a  mighty  contrast,  covering  whole  spaces  of  history, 
hardly  less  than  from  the  wolf  that  suckled  Romulus 
and  Remus  to  that  Roman  Senate  which,  on  curule 
chairs,  swayed  Italy  and  the  world.  From  these  ob- 
scure beginnings  of  poverty  and  weakness,  which  you 
now  piously  commemorate,  and  on  which  all  our  minds 
naturally  rest  to-day,  you  bid  us  leap  to  that  marble 
Capitol,  where  thirty-one  powerful  republics,  bound  in 
indissoluble  union,  a  Plural  Unit,  are  gathered  together 
in  legislative  body,  constituting  a  part  of  One  Gov- 
ernment, which,  stretching  from  ocean  to  ocean,  and 
counting  millions  of  people  beneath  its  majestic  rule, 
surpasses  far  in  wealth  and  might  any  Government  of 
the  Old  World  when  the  little  band  of  Pilgrims  left  it, 
and  now  promises  to  be  a  clasp  between  Europe  and 
Asia,  bringing  the  most  distant  places  near  together, 
so  that  there  shall  be  no  more  Orient  or  Occident.  It 
were  interesting  to  dwell  on  the  stages  of  this  grand 
procession ;  but  it  is  enough  on  this  occasion  merely 
to  glance  at  them  and  pass  on. 

Sir,  it  is  the  Pilgrims  that  we  commemorate  to-day  ; 
not  the  Senate.  For  this  moment,  at  least,  let  us 
tread  under  foot  all  pride  of  empire,  —  all  exultation 
in  our  manifold  triumphs  of  industry,  of  science,  of 
literature,  —  with  all  the  crowding  anticipations  of  the 
vast  untold  Future,  —  that  we  may  reverently  bow 
before  the  forefathers.  The  day  is  theirs.  In  the 


244      A    FINGER-POINT    FKOM    PLYMOUTH    KOCK. 

contemplation  of  their  virtue  we  shall  derive  a  lesson, 
which,  like  truth,  may  judge  us  sternly;  but,  if  we 
can  really  follow  it,  like  truth,  it  shall  make  us  free.- 
For  myself,  I  accept  the  admonitions  of  the  day.  It 
may  teach  us  all  never,  by  word  or  act,  although  we 
may  be  few  in  numbers  or  alone,  to  swerve  from  those 
primal  principles  of  duty,  which,  from  the  landing  at 
Plymouth  Rock,  have  been  the  life  of  Massachusetts. 
Let  me  briefly  unfold  the  lesson ;  though  to  the  dis- 
cerning soul  it  unfolds  itself. 

Few  persons  in  history  have  suffered  more  from 
contemporary  misrepresentation,  abuse,  and  persecu- 
tion, than  the  English  Puritans.  At  first  a  small 
body,  they  were  regarded  with  indifference  and  con- 
tempt. But  by  degrees  they  grew  in  numbers,  and 
drew  into  their  company  men  of  education,  intelli- 
gence, and  even  of  rank.  Reformers  in  all  ages  have 
had  little  of  blessing  from  the  world  which  they  sought 
to  serve ;  but  the  Puritans  were  not  disheartened. 
Still  they  persevered.  The  obnoxious  laws  of  con- 
formity they  vowed  to  withstand  till,  in  the  fervid 
language  of  the  time,  "  they  be  sent  back  to  the  dark- 
ness from  whence  they  came."  Through  them  the 
spirit  of  modern  Freedom  made  itself  potently  felt  in 
its  great  warface  with  Authority,  in  Church,  in  Litera- 
ture and  in  the  State ;  in  other  words,  for  religious, 
intellectual  and  political  emancipation.  The  Puritans 
primarily  aimed  at  religious  Freedom ;  for  this  they 
contended  in  Parliament,  under  Elizabeth  and  James ; 
for  this  they  suffered ;  but  so  connected  are  all  these 
great  and  glorious  interests,  that  the  struggles  for  one 
have  always  helped  the  others.  Such  service  did  they 
do,  that  Hume,  whose  cold  nature  sympathized  little 


A    FINGER-POINT    FROM    PLYMOUTH    ROCK.       245 

with  the*ir  burning  souls,  is  obliged  to  confess  that  to 
the  Puritans  alone  "  the  English  owe  the  whole  free- 
dom of  their  constitution." 

As  among  all  reformers,  so  among  them  there  were 
differences  of  degree.  Some  continued  within  the  pale 
of  the  National  Church,  and  there  pressed  their  ineffec- 
tual attempts  in  behalf  of  the  good  cause.  Some  at 
length,  driven  by  conscientious  convictions,  and  unwil- 
ling to  be  partakers  longer  in  its  enormities,  stung 
also  by  the  cruel  excesses  of  magisterial  power,  openly 
disclaimed  the  National  Establishment  and  became  a 
separate  sect,  first  under  the  name  of  Brownists,  from 
the  person  who  had  led  in  this  new  organization,  and 
then  under  the  better  name  of  Separatists.  I  like  this 
word,  sir.  It  has  a  meaning.  After  long  struggles  in 
Parliament  and  out  of  it,  in  Church  and  State,  con- 
tinued through  successive  reigns,  the  Puritans  finally 
triumphed,  and  the  despised  sect  of  Separatists,  swollen 
in  numbers,  and  now  under  the  denomination  of  Inde- 
pendents, with  Oliver  Cromwell  at  their  head  and 
John  Milton  as  his  Secretary,  ruled  England.  Thus 
is  prefigured  the  final  triumph  of  all,  however  few  in 
numbers,  who  sincerely  devote  themselves  to  Truth. 

The  Pilgrims  of  Plymouth  were  among  the  earliest 
of  the  Separatists.  As  such,  they  knew  by  bitter  ex- 
perience all  the  sharpness  of  persecution.  Against 
them  the  men  in  power  raged  like  the  heathen. 
Against  them  the  whole  fury  of  the  law  was  directed. 
Some  were  imprisoned;  all  were  impoverished,  while 
their  name  became  a  by-word  of  reproach.  For  safety 
and  freedom  the  little  band  first  sought  shelter  in 
Holland,  where  they  continued  in -indigence  and  obscu- 
rity for  more  than  ten  years,  when  they  were  inspired 
21* 


246      A.    FINGEB-POINT    FBOM    PLYMOUTH    BOCK. 

to  seek  a  home  in  this  unknown  Western  world. 
Such,  in  brief,  is  their  history.  I  could  not  say  more 
of  it  without  intruding  upon  your  time ;  I  could  not 
say  less  without  injustice  to  them. 

Rarely  have  austere  principles  been  expressed  with 
more  gentleness  than  from  their  lips.  By  a  covenant 
with  the  Lord,  they  had  vowed  to  walk  in  all  His 
ways,  according  to  their  best  endeavors,  whatsoever  it 
should  cost  them,  —  and  -also  to  receive  whatsoever 
truth  should  be  made  known  from  the  written  word 
of  God.  Repentance  and  prayers,  patience  and  tears, 
were  their  weapons.  "  It  is  not  with  us,"  said  they, 
"  as  with  other  men,  whom  small  things  can  discourage 
or  small  discontentments  cause  to  wish  themselves  at 
home  again."  And  then,  again,  on  another  occasion, 
their  souls  were  lifted  to  utterance  like  this :  "  When 
we  are  in  our  graves  it  will  be  all  one,  whether  we 
have  lived  in  plenty  or  penury,  whether  we  have  died 
in  a  bed  of  down  or  on  locks  of  straw."  Self-sacrifice 
is  never  in  vain,  and  they  foresaw,  with  the  clearness 
of  prophecy,  that  out  of  their  trials  should  come  a 
transcendent  Future.  "As  one  small  candle,"  said  an 
early  Pilgrim  Governor,  "  may  light  a  thousand,  so 
the  light  kindled  here  may  in  some  sort  shine  even  to 
the  whole  nation." 

And  yet  these  men,  with  such  sublime  endurance 
and  such  lofty  faith,  are  among  those  who  are  some- 
times called  "  Puritan  knaves  "  and  "  knaves-Puritans," 
and  who  were  branded  by  King  James  as  the  "  very 
pests  in  the  Church  and  Commonwealth."  The  small 
company  of  our  forefathers  became  the  jest  and  gibs 
of  fashion  and  power.  The  phrase  "  men  of  one  idea" 
had  not  been  invented  then;  but,  in  equivalent  Ian- 


A.    FINGER-POINT    FROM    PLYMOUTH    ROCK.       247 

guage,  they  were  styled  "  the  pinched  fanatics  of  Ley- 
den."  A  contemporary  poet  and  favorite  of  Charles 
the  First,  Thomas  Carew,  lent  his  genius  to  their 
defamation.  A  masque,  from  his  elegant  and  careful 
pen,  was  performed  by  the  monarch  and  his  courtiers, 
wherein  the  whole  plantation  of  New  England  was 
turned  to  royal  sport.  The  jeer  broke  forth  in  the 
exclamation,  that  it  had  "purged  more  virulent  humors 
from  the  politic  bodies  than  guaiacum  and  all  the  West 
Indian  drugs  from  the  natural  bodies  of  the  king- 
dom." * 

And  these  outcasts,  despised  in  their  own  day  by 
the  proud  and  great,  are  the  men  whom  we  have  met 
in  this  goodly  number  to  celebrate  ;  not  for  any  victory 
of  war ;  not  for  any  triumph  of  discovery,  science, 
learning,  or  eloquence  ;  not  for  worldly  success  of  any 
kind.  How  poor  are  all  these  things  by  the  side  of 
that  divine  virtue  which  made  them,  amidst  the  re- 
proach, the  obloquy  and  the  hardness  of  the  world, 
hold  fast  to  Freedom  and  Truth !  Sir,  if  the  honors 
of  this  day  are  not  a  mockery ;  if  they  do  not  expend 
themselves  in  mere  selfish  gratulation ;  if  they  are  a 
sincere  homage  to  the  character  of  the  Pilgrims  —  and 
I  cannot  suppose  otherwise,  —  then  is  it  well  for  us 
to  be  here.  Standing  on  Plymouth  Rock,  at  their 
great  anniversary,  we  cannot  fail  to  be  elevated  by 
their  example.  We  see  clearly  what  it  has  done 
for  the  world,  and  what  it  has  done  for  their 
fame.  No  pusillanimous  soul  here  to-day  will  de- 
clare their  self-sacrifice,  their  deviation  from  received 

*  This  masque,  entitled  Ccelum  Britannicum,  was  performed 
at  Whitehall,  18th  February,  1673. 


248       A    FINGEB-POINT    FROM    PLYMOUTH    BOCK. 

opinions,  their  unquenchable  thirst  for  liberty,  an 
error  or  illusion.  From  gushing  multitudinous  hearts 
we  now  thank  these  lowly  men  that  they  dared  to  be 
true  and  brave.  Conformity  or  compromise  might, 
perhaps,  have  purchased  for  them  a  profitable  peace, 
but  not  peace  of  mind  ;  it  might  have  secured  place 
and  power,  but  not  repose ;  it  might  have  opened  a 
present  shelter,  but  not  a  home  in  history  and  in 
men's  hearts  till  time  shall  be  no  more.  All  will 
confess  the  true  grandeur  of  their  example,  while,  in 
vindication  of  a  cherished  principle,  they  stood  alone, 
against  the  madness  of  men,  against  the  law  of  the 
land,  against  their  king.  Better  be  the  despised  Pil- 
grim, a  fugitive  for  freedom,  than  the  halting  politician, 
forgetful  of  principle,  "with  a  Senate  at  his  heels." 

Such,  sir,  is  the  voice  from  Plymouth  Rock,  as  it 
salutes  my  ears.  Others  may  not  hear  it.  But  to  me 
it  comes  in  tones  which  I  cannot  mistake.  I  catch  its 
words  of  noble  cheer :  — 

"New  occasions  teach  new  duties;  Time  makes  ancient  good 
uncouth  ; 

They  must  upward  still  and  onward  who  would  keep  abreast 
of  Truth : 

Lo,  before  us  gleam  her  camp-fires  !  we  ourselves  must  Pil- 
grims be, 

Launch  our  Mayflower,  and  steer  boldly  through  the  desperate 
winter  sea." 


THE  LANDMARK  OP  FREEDOM ;   FREEDOM 
NATIONAL. 


SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  AGAINST  THE 
REPEAL  OP  THE  MISSOURI  PROHIBITION  OF  SLAVERY  NORTH 
OF  36°  30'  IN  THE  NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS  BILL,  21ST  FEBRU- 
ARY, 1854. 


On  the  14th  December,  1853,  Mr.  Dodge  of  Iowa,  asked  and 
obtained  leave  to  introduce  a  Bill  to  organize  the  Territory  of 
Nebraska,  •which  was  read  a  first  and  second  time,  by  unanimous 
consent,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Territories.  This 
was  a  simple  Territorial  Bill,  in  the  common  form,  containing  no 
allusion  to  Slavery,  and  not  in  any  way  undertaking  to  touch 
the  existing  Prohibition  of  Slavery  in  this  Territory. 

On  the  4th  January,  1854,  Mr.  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  as  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  reported  this  Bill  back 
to  the  Senate,  with  various  amendments,  accompanied  by  a 
Special  Report.  By  this  Bill  only  a  single  Territory  was  consti- 
tuted under  the  name  of  Nebraska  ;  the  existing  Prohibition  of 
Slavery  was  not  directly  overthrown,  but  it  was  declared  that 
the  States  formed  out  of  this  Territory,  should  be  admitted  into 
the  Union  "  with  or  without  Slavery,"  as  they  should  desire. 

On  the  16th  January,  Mr.  Dixon,  of  Kentucky,  in  order  to 
accomplish  directly  what  the  Bill  did  only  indirectly,  gave  notice 
of  an  amendment,  to  the  effect  that  the  existing  Prohibition  of 
Slavery  "  shall  not  be  so  construed  as  to  apply  to  the  Territory 
contemplated  by  this  Act,  or  to  any  other  Territory  of  the  United 
States  ;  but  that  the  citizens  of  the  several  States  or  Territories 
shall  be  at  liberty  to  take  and  hold  their  Slaves  within  any  of 

[249] 


250  THE    XANDMAEK    OP    FREEDOM; 

the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the  States  to  be  formed 
therefrom." 

On  the  next  day,  17th  January,  Mr.  Sumner,  in  order  to  keep 
alive  the  existing  prohibition,  gave  notice  of  the  following  amend- 
ment :  — 

"  Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed 
to  abrogate  or  in  any  way  contravene  the  Act  of  March  6,  1820, 
entitled  '  An  Act  to  authorize  the  people  of  Missouri  Territory  to 
form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  and  for  the  admission 
of  such  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
States,  and  to  prohibit  Slavery  in  certain  Territories  ; '  wherein 
it  is  expressly  enacted  that '  in  all  that  territory  ceded  by  France 
to  the  United  States,  under  the  name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies 
north  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  north  latitude, 
not  included  within  the  limits  of  the  State  contemplated  by  this 
act,  Slavery  and  involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  in  the 
punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly 
convicted,  shall  be,  and  is  hereby,  forever  prohibited.'  " 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  at  this  stage  the  proposition  of  Mr. 
Dixon,  and  also  that  of  Mr.  Sumner,  were  equally  condemned 
by  the  Washington  Union,  the  official  organ  of  the  Adminis- 
tration. It  had  not  then  been  determined  to  sustain  the  repeal. 

On  the  23d  January,  Mr.  Douglas,  from  the  Committee  on 
Territories,  submitted  a  new  Bill  as  a  substitute  for  that  already 
reported.  Here  was  a  sudden  change,  by  which  the  Territory 
was  divided  into  two,  Nebraska  and  Kansas,  and  the  prohibi- 
tion of  Slavery  was  directly  overthrown.  According  to  his 
language  at  the  time,  there  was  "  incorporated  into  it  one  or 
two  other  amendments,  which  make  the  provisions  of  the  Bill 
upon  other  and  more  delicate  questions,  more  clear  and  specific, 
so  as  to  avoid  all  conflict  of  opinion."  It  was  formally  enun- 
ciated in  the  Bill,  that  the  prohibition  of  Slavery  "  was  super- 
seded by  the  principles  of  the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly 
called  the  Compromise  Measures,  and  is  hereby  declared  inoper- 
ative." This,  of  course,  superseded  the  proposed  amendment 
of  Mr.  Dixon,  who  subsequently  declared  his  entire  assent  to  the 
Bill  in  its  new  form.  It  also  presented  the  issue  directly  raised 
in  Mr.  Sumner's  proposed  amendment. 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  251 

On  the  next  day,  24th  January,  -when  the  amended  Bill  had 
just  been  laid  upon  the  tables  of  Senators,  and  without  allowing 
the  necessary  time  even  for  its  perusal,  Mr.  Douglas  pressed  its 
consideration  upon  the  Senate.  After  some  debate  it  was  post- 
poned until  the  30th  January,  and  made  the  special  order  from 
day  to  day  until  disposed  of. 

Meanwhile  an  appeal  to  the  country  was  put  forth  by  certain 
Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress,  calling  themselves 
Independent  Democrats.  It  was  entitled,  "  Shall  Slavery  be 
permitted  in  Nebraska  ? ' '  and  proceeded  in  strong  language  to 
expose  the  violation  of  plighted  faith  and  the  wickedness  about 
to  be  perpetrated.  This  document  was  extensively  circulated, 
and  did  much  to  arouse  the  public. 

On  the  30th  January,  the  Senate  proceeded  to  the  consider- 
ation of  the  Bill,  when  Mr.  Douglas  took  the  floor,  and  devoted 
himself  to  a  denunciation  of  the  appeal  put  forth  by  the  Inde- 
pendent Democrats,  characterizing  its  authors  as  "  Abolition 
confederates,"  and  particularly  arraigning  Mr.  Chase  of  Ohio, 
and  Mr.  Sumner,  the  two  Senators  who  had  signed  it.  When 
he  sat  down,  Mr.  Chase  replied  at  once  in  admirable  remarks  to  the 
personal  matters  introduced,  and  was  followed  in  a  few  words  by 
Mr.  Sumnar  ;  and  this  was  the  opening  of  the  great  debate  which 
occupied  for  months  the  attention  of  the  country. 

Mr.  STTMNER.  —  Mr.  President,  before  the  Senate 
adjourns  I  crave  a  single  moment.  As  one  of  the 
signers  of  the  address  referred  to  by  the  Senator  from 
Illinois  [Mr.  Douglas],  I  accept  now  openly,  before  the 
Senate  and  the  country,  my  full  responsibility  for  it, 
and  deprecate  no  criticism  from  any  quarter.  That 
document  was  put  forth  in  the  discharge  of  a  high 
public  duty  ;  on  the  precipitate  introduction  into  this 
body  of  a  measure  which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  not  only 
subversive  of  an  ancient  landmark,  but  hostile  to  the 
peace,  the  harmony,  and  the  best  interests  of  the  coun- 
try. But,  sir,  in  doing  this,  I  judged  the  act,  and  not 


252  THE    LANDMAEK    OF    FBEEDOM  ; 

its  author.  I  saw  only  the  enormous  proposition,  and 
nothing  of  the  Senator. 

The  language  used  is  strong,  but  it  is  not  stronger 
than  the  exigency  required.  Here  is  a  measure  which 
reverses  the  time-honored  policy  of  our  fathers  in  the 
restriction  of  Slavery ;  which  sets  aside  the  Missouri 
Compromise  —  a  solemn  compact,  by  which  all  the 
territory  ceded  by  France  under  the  name  of  Louisiana, 
was  "forever"  consecrated  to  freedom  —  and  which 
violates,  also,  the  alleged  compromises  of  1850  ;  and  all 
this  is  to  open  an  immense  territory  to  Slavery.  Such 
a  measure  cannot  be  regarded  without  emotions  too 
strong  for  speech ;  nor  can  it  be  justly  described  in 
common  language.  It  is  a  soulless,  eyeless  monster  — 
horrid,  unshapely,  vast;  and  this  monster  is  now  let 
loose  upon  the  country. 

Allow  me  one  other  word  of  explanation.  It  is 
true  I  desired  that  the  consideration  of  this  measure 
should  not  be  pressed  at  once  with  indecent  haste,  as 
was  proposed,  even  before  the  Senate  could  read  the 
Bill  in  which  it  was  embodied.  I  had  not  forgotten 
that  the  Missouri  Bill,  as  appears  from  the  Journals  of 
Congress,  when  first  introduced  in  December,  1819, 
was  allowed  to  rest  upon  the  table  nearly  two  months 
before  the  discussion  commenced.  The  proposition  to 
undo  the  only  part  of  that  work  which  is  now  in  any 
degree  within  the  reach  of  Congress  should  be  ap- 
proached with  even  greater  caution  and  reserve.  The 
people  have  a  right  to  be  heard  on  this  monstrous 
scheme  ;  and  there  is  no  apology  for  that  driving,  gal- 
loping speed,  which  shall  anticipate  their  voice,  and,  in 
its  consequences,  must  despoil  them  of  this  right. 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  253 

The  debate  was  continued  from  day  to  day.  On  the  7th 
February,  Mr.  Douglas  proposed  still  another  change  in  his  Bill. 
There  seemed  to  be  a  perpetual  difficulty  in  adjusting  the  lan- 
guage by  which  the  existing  prohibition  of  Slavery  should  be 
overthrown.  He  now  moved  to  strike  out  the  words  referring  to 
this  prohibition,  and  to  insert  the  following :  — 

"  Which  being  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  non-inter 
vention  by  Congress  with  Slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories, 
as  recognized  by  the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the 
Compromise  Measures,  is  hereby  declared  inoperative  and  void, 
it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  Act  not  to  legislate 
Slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom  ; 
but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate 
their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

On  the  15th  February  this  amendment  was  adopted  by  a  vote 
of  thirty-five  yeas  to  ten  nays.  The  debate  was  then  continued 
upon  the  pending  substitute  reported  by  the  Committee  for  the 
original  Bill. 

On  the  21st  February,  Mr.  Sumner  took  the  floor  and  spoke  as 
follows  :  — 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  I  approach  this  discussion,  with  awe. 
The  mighty  question,  with  its  untold  issues,  oppresses 
me.  Like  a  portentous  cloud,  surchanged  with  irresisti- 
ble storm,  and  ruin,  it  seems  to  fill  the  whole  heavens, 
making  me  painfully  conscious  how  unequal  I  am  to 
the  occasion  —  how  unequal,  also,  is  all  that  I  can.  say, 
to  all  that  I  feel. 

In  delivering  my  sentiments  here  to-day,  I  shall 
speak  frankly  —  according  to  my  convictions,  without 
concealment  or  reserve.  But  if  anything  fell  from  the 
Senator  from  Illinois  [[Mr.  Douglas],  in  opening  this 
discussion,  which  might  seem  to  challenge  a  personal 
contest,  I  desire  to  say  that  I  shall  not  enter  upon  it. 
22 


254  THE    LANDMARK    OF     FREEDOM; 

Let  not  a  word  or  a  tone  pass  my  lips,  to  direct  atten- 
tion, for  a  moment,  from  the  transcendent  theme,  — 
by  the  side  of  which  Senators  and  Presidents  are  but 
dwarfs.  I  would  not  forget  those  amenities  which 
belong  to  this  place,  and  are  so  well  calculated  to 
temper  the  antagonism  of  debate ;  nor  can  I  cease  to 
remember  and  to  feel,  that,  amidst  all  diversities  of 
opinion,  we  are  the  representatives  of  thirty-one  sister 
republics,  knit  together  by  indissoluble  tie,  and  consti- 
tuting that  Plural  Unit,  which  we  all  embrace  by  the 
endearing  name  of  country. 

The  question  presented  for  your  consideration  is  not 
surpassed  in  grandeur  by  any  which  has  occurred  in 
our  national  history  since  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence. In  every  aspect  it  assumes  gigantic  proportions, 
whether  we  simply  consider  the  extent  of  territory  it 
concerns,  or  the  public  faith  and  national  policy  which 
it  assails,  or  that  higher  question  —  that  Question  of 
Questions,  as  far  above  others  as  Liberty  is  above  the 
common  things  of  life  —  which  it  opens  anew  for  judg- 
ment. 

It  concerns  an  immense  region,  larger  than  the 
original  thirteen  States,  vying  in  extent  with  all  the 
existing  free  States  —  stretching  over  prairie,  field  and 
forest  —  interlaced  by  silver  streams,  skirted  by  pro- 
tecting mountains,  and  constituting  the  heart  of  the 
North  American  continent  —  only  a  little  smaller,  let 
me  add,  than  three  great  European  countries  combined 
—  Italy,  Spain  and  France  —  each  of  which,  in  succes- 
sion, has  dominated  over  the  globe.  This  territory  has 
already  been  likened,  on  this  floor,  to  the  Garden  of 
God.  The  similitude  is  found,  not  merely  in  its 
present  pure  and  virgin  character,  but  in  its  actual 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  255 

geographical  situation,  occupying  central  spaces  on  this 
hemisphere,  which,  in  their  general  relations,  may  well 
compare  with  that  early  Asiatic  home.  We  are  told 
that, 

Southward  through  Eden  went  a  river  large  ; 

BO  here  a  stream  flows  southward  which  is  larger  than 
the  Euphrates.  And  here,  too,  amidst  all  the  smiling 
products  of  nature,  lavished  by  the  hand  of  God,  is  the 
lofty  tree  of  Liberty,  planted  by  our  fathers,  which, 
without  exaggeration,  or  even  imagination,  may  be 
likened  to 


•  the  tree  of  life, 


High  eminent,  blooming  ambrosial  fruit 
Of  vegetable  gold. 

It  is  with  regard  to  this  territory,  that  you  are  now 
called  to  exercise  the  grandest  function  of  the  lawgiver, 
by  establishing  those  rules  of  polity  which  will  deter- 
mine its  future  character.  As  the  twig  is  bent  the  tree 
inclines ;  and  the  influences  impressed  upon  the  early 
days  of  an  empire,  like  those  upon  a  child,  are  of  incon- 
ceivable importance  to  its  future  weal  or  woe.  The  Bill 
now  before  us,  proposes  to  organize  and  equip  two  new 
territorial  establishments,  with  Governors,  Secretaries, 
Legislative  Councils,  Legislators,  Judges,  Marshals,  and 
the  whole  machinery  of  civil  society.  Such  a  measure, 
at  any  time,  would  deserve  the  most  careful  attention. 
But,  at  the  present  moment,  it  justly  excites  a  peculiar 
interest,  from  the  effort  made  —  on  pretences  unsus- 
tained  by  facts  —  in  violation  of  solemn  covenant,  and 
in  disregard  of  the  early  principles  of  our  fathers  —  to 
open  this  immense  region  to  Slavery. 


256  THE    LANDMAHK    OF    FREEDOM; 

According  to  existing  law,  this  territory  is  now 
guarded  against  Slavery  by  a  positive  prohibition, 
embodied  in  the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  6th  March, 
1820,  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into 
the  Union,  as  a  sister  State,  and  in  the  following  ex- 
plicit words : 

"  SEC.  8.  Be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  all  that  territory 
ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  under  the  name  of  Louis- 
iana, which  lies  north  36°  30'  of  north  latitude,  not  included 
•within  the  limits  of  the  State  contemplated  by  this  Act,  SLAVERY 
AND  INVOLUNTARY  SERVITUDE,  otherwise  than  as  the  punish- 
ment of  crimes,  SHALL  BE,  AND  is  HEREBY,  FOREVER  PRO- 
HIBITED." 

It  is  now  proposed  to  set  aside  this  prohibition ;  but 
there  seems  to  be  a  singular  indecision  as  to  the  way 
in  which  the  deed  shall  be  done.  From  the  time  of  its 
first  introduction,  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Territories,  the  proposition  has  assumed  different 
shapes  ;  and  it  promises  to  assume  as  many  as  Pro- 
teus ;  now,  one  thing  in  form,  and  now,  another  ;  now, 
like  a  river,  and  then,  like  flame ;  but,  in  every  form 
and  shape,  identical  in  substance ;  with  but  one  end 
and  aim  —  its  be-all  and  end-all  —  the  overthrow  of 
the  Prohibition  of  Slavery.  At  first,  it  proposed 
simply  to  declare,  that  the  States  formed  out  of  this 
territory  should  be  admitted  into  the  Union,  "  with  or 
without  Slavery,"  and  did  not  directly  assume  to  touch 
this  prohibition.  For  some  reason  this  was  not  satis- 
factory, and  then  it  was  precipitately  proposed  to 
declare,  that  the  prohibition  in  the  Missouri  Act  "  was 
superseded  by  the  principles  of  the  legislation  of  1850, 
commonly  called  the  Compromise  Measures,  and  is 
hereby  declared  inoperative."  But  this  would  not 


:  FKEEDOM    NATIONAL.  257 

do ;  and  it  is  now  proposed  to  enact,  that  the  prohi- 
bition, "  being  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  non- 
intervention, by  Congress,  with  Slavery  in  the  States 
and  Territories,  as  recognized  by  the  legislation  of 
1850,  commonly  called  the  Compromise  Measures,  is 
hereby  declared  inoperative  and  void." 

All  this  is  to  be  done  on  pretences  founded  upon  the 
Slavery  enactments  of  1850,  thus  seeking,  with  mingled 
audacity  and  cunning,  "  by  indirection  to  find  direction 
out."  Now,  sir,  I  am  not  here  to  speak  in  behalf  of 
those  measures,  or  to  lean  in  any  way  upon  their  sup- 
port. Relating  to  different  subject-matters,  contained 
in  different  acts,  which  prevailed  successively,  at  dif 
ferent  times,  and  by  different  votes  —  some  persons 
voting  for  one  measure,  and  some  voting  for  another, 
and  very  few  voting  for  all  —  they  cannot  be  regarded 
as  a  unit,  embodying  conditions  of  compact,  or  com- 
promise, if  you  please,  adopted  equally  by  all,  and 
therefore  obligatory  on  all.  But  since  this  broken 
series  of  measures  has  been  adduced  as  an  apology  for 
the  proposition  now  before  us,  I  desire  to  say,  that, 
such  as  they  are,  they  cannot,  by  any  effort  of  interpre- 
tation, by  any  distorting  wand  of  power,  by  any  per- 
verse alchemy,  be  transmuted  into  a  repeal  of  that 
original  Prohibition  of  Slavery. 

On  this  head  there  are  several  points  to  which  I 
would  merely  call  attention,  and  then  pass  on.  First : 
The  Slavery  enactments  of  1850  did  not  pretend,  in 
terms,  to  touch,  much  less  to  change,  the  condition  of 
the  Louisiana  Territory,  which  was  already  fixed  by 
Congressional  enactment.  The  two  transactions  related 
to  different  subject-matters.  Secondly :  The  enact- 
ments do  not  directly  touch  the  subject  of  Slavery, 
22* 


258  THE    XAXDMAKK    OF    FREEDOM  ; 

during  the  Territorial  existence  of  Utah  and  New 
Mexico ;  but  they  provide  prospectively,  that,  when 
admitted  as  States,  they  shall  be  received  "  with  or 
without  Slavery."  Here  certainly  can  be  no  overthrow 
of  an  Act  of  Congress  which  directly  concerns  a  Ter- 
ritory during  its  Territorial  existence.  Thirdly  : 
During  all  the  discussion  of  these  measures  in  Congress, 
and  afterwards  before  the  people,  and  through  the 
public  press,  at  the  North  and  the  South  alike,  no 
person  was  heard  to  intimate  that  the  Prohibition  of 
Slavery  in  the  Missouri  Act  was  in  any  way  disturbed. 
And,  fourthly,  The  acts  themselves  contain  a  formal 
provision,  that  "  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be 
construed  to  impair  or  qualify  anything"  in  a  certain 
article  of  the  resolutions  annexing  Texas,  wherein  it  is 
expressly  declared,  that  in  territory  north  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  line,  "  Slavery,  or  involuntary 
servitude,  except  for  crime,  shall  be  prohibited." 

But  I  do  not  dwell  on  these  things.  These  pre- 
tences have  been  already  amply  refuted  by  able  Sena- 
tors who  have  preceded  me.  It  is  clear,  beyond 
contradiction,  that  the  Prohibition  of  Slavery  in  this 
Territory  has  not  been  superseded  or  in  any  way 
contravened  by  the  Slavery  Acts  of  1850.  The  propo- 
sition before  you  is,  therefore,  original  in  its  character, 
without  sanction  from  any  former  legislation,  and  it 
must,  accordingly,  be  judged  by  its  merits,  as  an  origi- 
nal proposition. 

Here,  sir,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  friends  of 
Freedom  are  not  open  to  any  charge  of  aggression. 
They  are  now  standing  on  the  defensive,  guarding  the 
early  intrenchments  thrown  up  by  our  fathers.  No 
proposition  to  abolish  Slavery  anywhere  is  now  before 


FKEEDOM    NATIONAL.  259 

you;  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  proposition  to  abolish 
Freedom.  Tbe  term  Abolitionist,  which  is  so  often 
applied  in  reproach,  justly  belongs,  on  this  occasion, 
to  him  who  would  overthrow  this  well-established 
landmark.  He  is,  indeed,  no  Abolitionist  of  Slavery  ; 
let  him  be  called,  sir,  an  Abolitionist  of  Freedom. 
For  myself,  whether  with  many  or  few,  my  place  is 
taken.  Even  if  alone,  my  feeble  arm  should  not  be 
wanting  as  a  bar  against  this  outrage. 

On  two  distinct  grounds,  "  both  strong  against  the 
deed,"  I  arraign  it :  First,  in  the  name  of  Public 
Faith,  as  an  infraction  of  solemn  obligations,  assumed 
beyond  recall  by  the  South,  on  the  admission  of  Mis- 
souri into  the  Union  as  a  Slave  State.  Secondly,  I 
arraign  it,  in  the  name  of  Freedom,  as  an  unjustifiable 
departure  from  the  original  Anti-slavery  policy  of  our 
fathers.  These  two  heads  I  propose  to  consider  in 
their  order,  glancing  under  the  latter  at  the  objections 
to  the  Prohibition  of  Slavery  in  the  Territories. 

And  here,  sir,  before  I  approach  the  argument, 
indulge  me  with  a  few  preliminary  words  on  the 
character  of  this  proposition.  Slavery  is  the  forcible 
subjection  of  one  human  being,  in  person,  labor  and 
property,  to  the  will  of  another.  In  this  simple  state- 
ment is  involved  its  whole  injustice.  There  is  no 
offence  against  religion,  against  morals,  against  hu- 
manity, which  may  not,  in  the  license  of  this  enormity, 
stalk  "  unwhipt  of  justice."  For  the  husband  and 
wife  there  is  nc  marriage  ;  for  the  mother  there  is  no 
assurance  that  her  infant  child  will  not  be  ravished 
from  her  breast ;  for  all  who  bear  the  name  of  Slave, 
there  is  nothing  that  they  can  call  their  own.  With- 


. 

260  THE    iANDMABK    OF    FBEEDOM  J 

out  a  father,  without  a  mother,  almost  without  a  God, 
the  slave  has  nothing  but  a  master.  It  would  be  con- 
trary to  that  Rule  of  Right,  which  is  ordained  by  God, 
if  such  a  system,  though  mitigated  often  by  a  patri- 
archal kindness,  and  by  a  plausible  physical  comfort, 
could  be  otherwise  than  pernicious  in  its  influences. 
It  is  confessed  that  the  master  suffers  not  less  than 
the  slave.  And  this  is  not  all.  The  whole  social 
fabric  is  disorganized  ;  labor  loses  its  dignity  ;  industry 
sickens  ;  education  finds  no  schools,  and  all  the  land 
of  Slavery  is  impoverished.  And  now,  sir,  when  the 
conscience  of  mankind  is  at  last  aroused  to  these 
things  ;  when,  throughout  the  civilized  world,  a  slave- 
dealer  is  a  by-word  and  a  reproach,  we,  as  a  nation, 
are  about  to  open  a  new  market  to  the  traffickers  in 
flesh,  that  haunt  the  shambles  of  the  South.  Such  an 
act,  at  this  time,  is  removed  from  all  reach  of  that 
palliation  often  vouchsafed  to  Slavery.  This  wrong, 
we  are  speciously  told,  by  those  who  seek  to  defend 
it,  is  not  our  original  sin.  It  was  entailed  upon  us, 
so  we  are  instructed,  by  our  ancestors ;  and  the 
responsibility  is  often,  with  exultation,  thrown  upon 
the  mother  country.  Now,  without  stopping  to  in- 
quire into  the  value  of  this  apology,  which  is  never 
adduced  in  behalf  of  other  abuses,  and  which  availed 
nothing  against  that  kingly  power  imposed  by  the 
mother  country,  which  our  fathers  overthrew,  it  is 
sufficient  for  the  present  purpose  to  know,  that  it  is 
now  proposed  to  make  Slavery  our  own  original  act. 
Here  is  a  fresh  case  of  actual  transgression,  which  we 
cannot  cast  upon  the  shoulders  of  any  progenitors,  nor 
upon  any  mother  country,  distant  in  time  or  place. 
The  Congress  of  the  United  States,  the  people  of  the 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  261 

United  States,  at  this  day,  in  this  vaunted  period  of 
light,  will  be  responsible  for  it,  so  that  it  shall  be  said 
hereafter,  so  long  as  the  dismal  history  of  Slavery  is 
read,  that,  in  the  year  of  Christ,  1854,  a  new  and 
deliberate  act  was  passed,  by  which  a  vast  Territory 
was  opened  to  its  inroads. 

Alone  in  the  company  of  nations  does  our  country 
assume  this  hateful  championship.  In  despotic  Russia, 
the  serfdom  which  constitutes  the  "  peculiar  institu- 
tion "  of  that  great  empire,  is  never  allowed  to  travel 
with  the  imperial  flag,  according  to  the  American  pre- 
tension, into  provinces  newly  acquired  by  the  common 
blood  and  treasure,  but  is  carefully  restricted  by  posi- 
tive prohibition,  in  harmony  with  the  general  con- 
science, within  its  ancient  confines ;  and  this  prohibi- 
tion —  the  Wilmot  proviso  of  Russia  —  is  rigorously 
enforced  on  every  side,  in  all  the  provinces,  as  in 
Besarabia  on  the  south,  and  Poland  on  the  west,  so 
that,  in  fact,  no  Russian  nobleman  has  been  able  to 
move  into  these  important  territories  with  his  slaves. 
Thus  Russia  speaks  for  Freedom,  and  disowns  the 
slave-holding  dogma  of  our  country.  Far  away  in  the 
East,  at  the  "  gateways  of  the  day,"  in  effeminate 
India,  Slavery  has  been  condemned.  In  Constantinople, 
the  queenly  seat  of  the  most  powerful  Mohammedan 
empire,  where  barbarism  still  mingles  with  civilization, 
the  Ottoman  Sultan  has  fastened  upon  it  the  stigma  of 
disapprobation.  The  Barbary  States  of  Africa,  occu- 
pying the  same  parallels  of  latitude  with  the  Slave 
States  of  our  Union,  and  resembling  them  in  the 
nature  of  their  boundaries,  their  productions,  their 
climate,  and  the  "  peculiar  institution,"  which  sought 
shelter  in  both,  have  been  changed  into  Abolitionists. 


262  THE    XANDMARK    OF    FREEDOM  ; 

Algiers,  seated  on  the  line  of  36°  30',  has  been  dedi- 
cated to  Freedom.  Morocco,  by  its  untutored  ruler, 
has  expressed  its  desire,  stamped  in  the  formal  terms 
of  a  treaty,  that  the  very  name  of  Slavery  may  perish 
from  the  minds  of  men ;  and  only  recently,  from  the 
Bey  of  Tunis,  has  proceeded  that  noble  act,  by  which, 
"  in  honor  of  God,  and  to  distinguish  man  from  the 
brute  creation" — I  quote  his  own  words  —  he  de- 
creed its  total  abolition  throughout  his  dominions. 
Let  Christian  America  be  willing  to  be  taught  by  these 
examples.  God  forbid  that  our  republic  —  "  heir  of 
all  the  ages,  foremost  in  the  files  of  time  "  —  should 
adopt  anew  the  barbarism  which  they  have  renounced. 
As  the  effort  now  making  is  extraordinary  in  char- 
acter, so  no  assumption  seems  too  extraordinary  to  be 
wielded  in  its  support.  The  primal  truth  of  the 
Equality  of  men,  proclaimed  in  our  Declaration  of 
Independence,  has  been  assailed,  and  this  Great  Char- 
ter of  our  country  discredited.  Sir,  you  and  I  will 
soon  pass  away,  but  that  charter  will  continue  to  stand 
above  impeachment  or  question.  The  Declaration  of 
Independence  was  a  Declaration  of  Rights,  and  the 
language  employed,  though  general  in  its  character, 
must  obviously  be  restrained  within  the  design  and 
sphere  of  a  Declaration  of  Rights,  involving  no  such 
absurdity  as  was  attributed  to  it  yesterday  by  the 
Senator  from  Indiana  [Mr.  Petti t].  Sir,  it  is  a 
palpable  fact  that  men  are  not  born  equal  in  physical 
strength  or  in  mental  capacities,  in  beauty  of  form  or 
health  of  body.  These  mortal  cloaks  of  flesh  differ,  as 
do  these  worldly  garments.  Diversity  or  inequality, 
in  these  respects,  is  the  law  of  creation.  But  as  God 
is  no  respecter  of  persons,  and  as  all  are  equal  in  His 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  263 

sight,  whether  Dives  or  Lazarus,  master  or  slave,  so 
are  all  equal  in  natural  inborn  rights ;  and  pardon  me 
if  I  say,  it  is  a  vain  sophism  to  adduce  in  argument 
against  this  vital  axiom  of  Liberty,  the  physical  or 
mental  inequalities  by  which  men  are  characterized,  or 
the  unhappy  degradation  to  which,  in  violation  of  a 
common  brotherhood,  they  are  doomed.  To  deny  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  is  to  rush  on  the  bosses 
of  the  shield  of  the  Almighty,  —  which,  in  all  respects, 
the  supporters  of  this  measure  seem  to  do. 

To  the  delusive  suggestion  of  the  Senator  from 
North  Carolina  [Mr.  Badger],  that,  by  the  overthrow 
of  this  prohibition,  the  number  of  slaves  will  not  be 
increased ;  that  there  will  be  simply  a  beneficent  diffu- 
sion of  Slavery,  and  not  its  extension,  I  reply  at  once, 
that  this  argument,  if  of  any  value  —  if  not  mere  words 
and  nothing  else  —  would  equally  justify  and  require 
the  overthrow  of  the  Prohibition  of  Slavery  in  the  Free 
States,  and  indeed,  everywhere  throughout  the  world. 
All  the  dikes  which,  in  different  countries,  from  time 
to  time,  with  the  march  of  civilization,  have  been 
painfully  set  up  against  the  inroads  of  this  evil,  must 
be  removed,  and  every  land  opened  anew  to  its  de- 
structive flood.  It  is  clear,  beyond  dispute,  that  by 
the  overthrow  of  this  prohibition,  Slavery  will  be 
quickened,  and  slaves  themselves  will  be  multiplied, 
while  new  room  and  verge  will  be  secured  for  the 
gloomy  operations  of  slave  law,  under  which  free  labor 
will  droop,  and  a  vast  territory  be  smitten  with  ster- 
ility. Sir,  a  blade  of  grass  would  not  grow  where  the 
horse  of  Attila  had  trod  ;  nor  can  any  true  prosperity 
spring  up  in  the  foot-prints  of  the  slave. 

But  it  is  argued,  that  slaves  will  not  be  carried  into 


264  THE    I/ANDMARK    OF    FKEEDOM  ; 

Nebraska  in  large  numbers,  and  that,  therefore,  the 
question  is  of  small  practical  moment.  My  distin- 
guished colleague  [Mr.  Everett],  in  his  eloquent 
speech,  hearkened  to  this  apology,  and  allowed  him- 
self, while  upholding  the  prohibition,  to  disparage  its 
importance  in  a  manner,  from  which  I  feel  obliged 
kindly,  but  most  strenuously,  to  dissent.  Sir,  the 
very  census  attests  its  vital  consequence.  There  is 
Missouri,  at  this  moment,  with  Illinois  on  the  east  and 
Nebraska  on  the  west,  all  covering  nearly  the  same 
spaces  of  latitude,  and  resembling  each  other  in  soil, 
climate  and  natural  productions.  Mark  now  the  con- 
trast !  By  the  potent  efficacy  of  the  ordinance  of  the 
Northwestern  Territory,  Illinois  is  a  free  State,  while 
Missouri  has  eighty-seven  thousand  four  hundred  and 
twenty-two  slaves ;  and  the  simple  question  which 
challenges  an  answer  is,  whether  Nebraska  shall  be 
preserved  in  the  condition  of  Illinois,  or  surrendered 
to  that  of  Missouri  ?  Surely  this  cannot  be  treated 
lightly.  But  for  myself,  I  am  unwilling  to  measure 
the  exigency  of  the  prohibition  by  the  number  of  per- 
sons, whether  many  or  few,  whom  it  may  protect. 
Human  rights,  whether  in  a  vast  multitude  or  a  soli- 
tary individual,  are  entitled  to  an  equal  and  unhesitat- 
ing support.  In  this  spirit,  the  flag  of  our  country 
only  recently  became  the  impenetrable  panoply  of 
a  homeless  wanderer,  who  claimed  its  protection  in 
a  distant  sea ;  and  in  this  spirit  I  am  constrained  to 
declare  that  there  is  no  place  accessible  to  human 
avarice,  or  human  lust,  or  human  force  —  whether  in 
the  lowest  valley,  or  on  the  loftiest  mountain  top, 
whether  on  the  broad  flower-spangled  prairies,  or  the 
snowy  caps  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  —  where  the  pro- 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  265 

hibition  of  Slavery,   like  the   commandments   of  the 
Decalogue,  should  not  go. 

I.  And  now,  sir,  in  the  name  of  that  Public  Faith, 
which  is  the  very  ligament  of  civil  society,  and  which 
the  great  Roman  orator  tells  us  it  is  detestable  to 
break  even  with  an  enemy,  I  arraign  this  scheme,  and 
hold  it  up  to  the  judgment  of  the  country.  There  is 
an  early  Italian  story  of  an  experienced  citizen,  who, 
when  told  by  his  nephew  that  he  had  been  studying, 
at  the  University  of  Bologna,  the  science  of  right,  said 
in  reply,  "  You  have  spent  your  time  to  little  purpose. 
It  would  have  been  better  had  you  learned  the  science 
of  might,  for  that  is  worth  two  of  the  other  ;  "  and  the 
bystanders  of  that  day  all  agreed  that  the  veteran 
spoke  the  truth.  I  begin,  sir,  by  assuming  that  honor- 
able Senators  will  not  act  in  this  spirit  —  that  they 
will  not  substitute  might  for  right  —  that  they  will 
not  wantonly  and  flagitiously  discard  any  obligation, 
pledge,  or  covenant,  because  they  chance  to  possess 
the  power ;  but  that,  as  honest  men,  desirous  to  do 
right,  they  will  confront  this  question. 

Sir,  the  proposition  before  you  involves  not  merely 
the  repeal  of  an  existing  law,  but  the  infraction  of 
solemn  obligations  originally  proposed  and  assumed 
by  the  South,  after  a  protracted  and  embittered  con- 
test, as  a  covenant  of  peace  —  with  regard  to  certain 
specified  territory  therein  described,  namely  :  "  All 
that  territory  ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States, 
under  the  name  of  Louisiana  ;  "  according  to  which, 
in  consideration  of  the  admission  into  the  Union  of 
Missouri  as  a  slave  State,  Slavery  was  forever  prohib- 
ited in  all  the  remaining  part  of  this  territory  which 
23 


266  THE    LANDMARK    OF    FREEDOM; 

lies  north  of  36°  30'.  This  arrangement,  between 
different  sections  of  the  Union  —  the  slave  States 
of  the  first  part  and  the  free  States  of  the  second 
part  —  though  usually  known  as  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise, was  at  the  time  styled  a  COMPACT.  In  its 
stipulations  for  Slavery,  it  was  justly  repugnant  to 
the  conscience  of  the  North,  and  ought  never  to  have 
been  made  ;  but  on  that  side  it  has  been  performed. 
And  now  the  unperformed  outstanding  obligations  to 
Freedom,  originally  proposed  and  assumed  by  the 
South,  are  resisted. 

Years  have  passed  since  these  obligations  were 
embodied  in  the  legislation  of  Congress,  and  accepted 
by  the  country.  Meanwhile,  the  statesmen  by  whom 
they  were  framed  and  vindicated  have,  one  by  one, 
dropped  from  this  earthly  sphere.  Their  living  voices 
cannot  now  be  heard,  to  plead  for  the  conservation  of 
that  Public  Faith  to  which  they  were  pledged.  But 
this  extraordinary  lapse  of  time,  with  the  complete 
fruition  by  one  party  of  all  the  benefits  belonging  to  it, 
under  the  compact,  gives  to  the  transaction  an  added 
and  most  sacred  strength.  Prescription  steps  in  and 
with  new  bonds,  confirms  the  original  work,  to  the 
end  that  while  men  are  mortal,  controversies  shall  not 
be  immortal.  Death,  with  inexorable  scythe,  has 
mowed  down  the  authors  of  this  compact ;  but,  with 
conservative  hour-glass,  the  dread  destroyer  has  counted 
out  a  succession  of  years,  which  now  defile  before  us, 
like  so  many  sentinels,  to  guard  the  sacred  landmark 
of  Freedom. 

A  simple  statement  of  facts,  derived  from  the  jour- 
nals of  Congress  and  contemporary  records,  will  show 
the  origin  and  nature  of  this  compact,  the  influence  by 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  267 

which  it  was  established,  and  the  obligations  which  it 
imposed. 

As  early  as  1818,  at  the  first  session  of  the  fifteenth 
Congress,  a  Bill  was  reported  to  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, authorizing  the  people  of  the  Missouri  Ter- 
ritory to  form  a  Constitution  and  State  Government, 
for  the  admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union ;  but, 
at  that  session,  no  final  action  was  had  thereon.  At 
the  next  session,  in  February,  1819,  the  Bill  was  again 
brought  forward,  when  an  eminent  Representative  of 
New  York,  whose  life  has  been  spared  till  this  last 
summer,  Mr.  James  Tallmadge,  moved  a  clause  pro- 
hibiting any  further  introduction  of  slaves  into  the 
proposed  State,  and  securing  Freedom  to  the  children 
born  within  the  State  after  its  admission  into  the 
Union,  on  attaining  twenty-five  years  of  age.  This 
important  proposition,  which  assumed  a  power  not 
only  to  prohibit  the  ingress  of  Slavery  into  the  State 
itself,  but  also  to  abolish  it  there,  was  passed  in  the 
affirmative,  after  a  vehement  debate  of  thrje  days. 
On  a  division  of  the  question,  the  first  part,  prohibit- 
ing the  further  introduction  of  slaves,  was  adopted  by 
eighty-seven  yeas  to  seventy-six  nays ;  the  second 
part,  providing  for  the  emancipation  of  children,  was 
adopted  by  eighty-two  yeas  to  seventy-eight  nays. 
Other  propositions  to  thwart  the  operation  of  these 
amendments  were  voted  down,  and  on  the  17th  Feb- 
ruary the  Bill  was  read  a  third  time,  and  passed  with 
these  important  restrictions. 

In  the  Senate,  after  debate,  the  provision  for  the 
emancipation  of  children  was  struck  out  by  thirty-one 
yeas  to  seven  nays ;  the  other  provision,  against  the 
further  introduction  of  Slavery,  was  struck  out  by 


268  THE    JGANDMAHK    OF    FREEDOM:  ; 

twenty-two  yeas  to  sixteen  nays.  Thus  emasculated, 
the  Bill  was  returned  to  the  House,  which,  on  2d  March, 
by  a  vote  of  seventy-eight  nays  to  seventy-six  yeas, 
refused  its  concurrence.  The  Senate  adhered  to  their 
amendments,  and  the  House,  by  seventy-eight  yeas  to 
sixty-six  nays,  adhered  to  their  disagreement ;  and  so 
at  this  session  the  Missouri  Bill  was  lost ;  and  here 
was  a  temporary  triumph  for  Freedom. 

Meanwhile,  the  same  controversy  was  renewed  on 
the  Bill  pending  at  the  same  tune  for  the  organization 
of  the  Territory  of  Arkansas,  then  known  as  the  south- 
ern part  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri.  The  restrictions 
already  adopted  in  the  Missouri  Bill  were  moved  by 
Mr.  Taylor,  of  New  York,  subsequently  Speaker ;  but 
after  at  least  six  close  votes,  on  the  yeas  and  nays,  in 
one  of  which  the  House  was  equally  divided,  eighty-eight 
yeas  to  eighty-eight  nays,  they  were  lost.  Another 
proposition  by  Mr,  Taylor,  simpler  in  form,  that  Slavery 
should  not  hereafter  be  introduced  into  this  Territory, 
was  lost  by  ninety  nays  to  eighty-six  yeas  ;  and  the 
Arkansas  Bill  on  25th  February  was  read  the  third 
time  and  passed.  In  the  Senate,  Mr.  Burrill,  of  Rhode 
Island,  moved,  as  an  amendment,  the  prohibition  of 
the  further  introduction  of  Slavery  into  this  Territory, 
which  was  lost  by  nineteen  nays  to  fourteen  yeas. 
And  thus,  without  any  provision  for  Freedom,  Arkansas 
was  organized  as  a  Territory ;  and  here  was  a  triumph 
of  Slavery. 

At  this  same  session,  Alabama  was  admitted  as  a 
slave  State,  without  any  restriction  or  objection. 

It  was  in  the  discussion  on  the  Arkansas  Bill,  at  this 
session,  that  we  find  the  earliest  suggestion  of  a  Com- 
promise. Defeated  in  his  efforts  to  prohibit  Slavery  in 


FBEEDOM    NATIONAL.  269 

this  Territory,  Mr.  Taylor  stated  that  "  he  thought  it 
important  that  some  line  should  be  designated  beyond 
which  Slavery  should  not  be  permitted,"  and  he  moved 
its  prohibition  hereafter  in  all  territories  of  the  United 
States  north  of  36°  30'  north  latitude,  without  any 
exception  of  Missouri,  which  is  north  of  this  line. 
This  proposition,  though  withdrawn  after  debate,  was 
at  once  welcomed  by  Mr.  Livermore,  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, "  as  made  in  the  true  spirit  of  compromise."  It 
was  opposed  by  Mr.  Khea,  of  Tennessee,  on  behalf  of 
Slavery,  who  avowed  himself  against  every  restriction ; 
and  also  by  Mr.  Ogle,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  behalf  of 
Freedom,  who  was  "  against  any  Compromise  by  which 
Slavery,  in  any  of  the  Territories,  should  be  recognized 
or  sanctioned  by  Congress."  In  this  spirit  it  was  op- 
posed and  supported  by  others,  among  whom  was 
General  Harrison,  afterwards  President  of  the  United 
States,  who  "  assented  to  the  expediency  of  establish- 
ing some  such  line  of  discrimination  ;  "  but  proposed 
a  line  due  west  from  the  mouth  of  the  Des  Moines, 
thus  constituting  the  northern,  and  not  the  southern 
boundary  of  Missouri,  the  partition  line  between  Free- 
dom and  Slavery. 

But  this  idea  of  Compromise,  though  suggested  by 
Mr.  Taylor,  was  thus  early  adopted  and  vindicated  in 
this  very  debate,  by  an  eminent  character,  —  Mr.  Louis 
McLane,  of  Delaware,  —  who  has  since  held  high  office 
in  the  country,  and  enjoyed  no  common  measure  of 
public  confidence.  Of  all  the  leading  actors  in  these 
early  scenes,  he  and  Mr.  Mercer  alone  are  yet  spared. 
On  this  occasion  he  said  : 

"  The  fixing  of  a  line  on  the  west  of  the  Mississippi,  north  of 
which  Slavery  shall  not  be  tolerated,  had  always  been  with  him  a 
23* 


270        THE  XANDMAEK  OF  FBEEDOM  ; 

favorite  policy,  and  he  hoped  the  day  was  not  distant  when,  upon 
principles  of  fair  compromise,  it  might  constitutionally  be  effected. 
The  present  attempt  he  regarded  as  premature." 

After  opposing  the  restriction  on  Missouri,  he  con- 
cluded by  declaring  : 

"  At  the  same  time,  I  do  not  mean  to  abandon  the  policy  to 
which  I  alluded  in  the  commencement  of  my  remarks.  I  think 
it  but  fair  that  both  sections  of  the  Union  should  be  accommo- 
dated on  this  subject,  with  regard  to  which  so  much  feeling  has 
been  manifested.  The  same  great  motives  of  policy  which  recon- 
ciled and  harmonized  the  jarring  and  discordant  elements  of  our 
system  originally,  and  which  enabled  the  framers  of  our  happy 
Constitution  to  compromise  the  different  interests  which  then 
prevailed  on  this  and  other  subjects,  if  properly  cherished  by  us, 
will  enable  us  to  achieve  similar  objects.  If  we  me:t  upon  prin- 
ciples of  reciprocity,  we  cannot  fail  to  do  justice  to  all.  It  has 
already  been  avowed,  by  gentlemen  on  this  floor  from,  the  South 
and  the  West,  that  they  will  agree  upon  a  line  which  shall  divide 
the  slaveholding  from  the  non-slaveholding  States.  It  is  this 
proposition  I  am  anxious  to  effect ;  but  I  wish  to  effect  it  by 
some  COMPACT  which  shall  be  binding  upon  all  parties,  and  all 
subsequent  Legislatures ;  which  cannot  be  changed,  and  will 
not  fluctuate  with  the  diversity  of  feeling  and  of  sentiment  to 
which  this  empire,  in  its  march,  must  be  destined.  There  is  a 
vast  and  immense  tract  of  country  west  of  the  Mississippi  yet  to 
be  settled,  and  intimately  connected  with  the  Northern  section 
of  the  Union,  upon  which  this  compromise  can  be  effected." 

The  suggestions  of  Compromise  were  at  this  time 
vain  ;  each  party  was  determined.  The  North,  by  the 
prevailing  voice  of  its  representatives,  claimed  all  for 
Freedom  ;  the  South,  by  its  potential  command  of  the 
Senate,  claimed  all  for  Slavery. 

The  report  of  this  debate  aroused  the  country.  For 
the  first  time  in  our  history,  Freedom,  after  an  ani- 
mated struggle,  hand  to  hand,  had  been  kept  in  check 
by  Slavery.  The  original  policy  of  our  fathers  in  the 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  271 

restriction  of  slavery  was  suspended,  and  this  giant 
wrong  threatened  to  stalk  into  all  the  broad  national 
domain.  Men  at  the  North  were  humbled  and  amazed. 
The  imperious  demands  of  Slavery  seemed  incredible. 
Meanwhile,  the  whole  subject  was  adjourned  from 
Congress  to  the  people.  Through  the  press  and  at 
public  meetings,  an  earnest  voice  was  raised  against 
the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  without  the 
restriction  of  Slavery.  Judges  left  the  bench  and 
clergymen  the  pulpit,  to  swell  the  indignant  protest 
which  went  up  from  good  men,  without  distinction  of 
party  or  of  pursuit. 

The  movement  was  not  confined  to  a  few  persons, 
nor  to  a  few  States.  A  public  meeting  at  Trenton,  in 
New  Jersey,  was  followed  by  others  in  New  York  and 
Philadelphia,  and  finally  at  Worcester,  Salem  and 
Boston,  where  Committees  were  organized  to  rally  the 
country.  The  citizens  of  Baltimore,  in  public  meeting 
at  the  court-house  with  the  Mayor  in  the  chair,  re- 
solved that  the  future  admission  of  slaves  into  the  States 
hereafter  formed  west  of  the  Mississippi,  ought  to  be 
prohibited  by  Congress.  Villages,  towns  and  cities, 
by  memorial,  petition  and  prayer,  called  upon  Congress 
to  maintain  the  great  principle  of  the  prohibition  of 
Slavery.  The  same  principle  was  also  commended  by 
the  resolutions  of  State  Legislatures  ;  and  Pennsyl- 
vania, inspired  by  the  teachings  of  Franklin  and  the 
convictions  of  the  respectable  denomination  of  Friends, 
unanimously  asserted  at  once  the  right  and  the  duty 
of  Congress  to  prohibit  Slavery  Avest  of  the  Mississippi, 
and  solemnly  appealed  to  her  sister  States,  "  to  refuse 
to  covenant  with  crime."  New  Jersey  and  Delaware 
followed,  both  also  unanimously.  Ohio  asserted  the 


272  THE    LANDMARK    OF    FREEDOM ; 

same  principle :  so  did  also  Indiana.  The  latter  State, 
not  content  with  providing  for  the  future,  severely 
censured  one  of  its  Senators,  for  his  vote  to  organize 
Arkansas  without  the  prohibition  of  Slavery.  The  reso- 
lutions of  New  York  were  reinforced  by  the  recom- 
mendation of  De  Witt  Clinton. 

Amidst  these  excitements,  Congress  came  together 
in  December,  1819,  taking  possession  of  these  Halls 
of  the  Capitol  for  the  first  time  since  their  desolation 
by  the  British.  On  the  day  after  the  receipt  of  the 
President's  Message,  two  several  Committees  of  the 
House  were  constituted,  one  to  consider  the  application 
of  Maine,  and  the  other  of  Missouri,  to  enter  the  Union 
as  separate  and  independent  States.  With  only  the 
delay  of  a  single  day,  the  bill  for  the  admission  of 
Missouri  was  reported  to  the  House  without  the  restric- 
tion of  Slavery ;  but,  as  if  shrinking  from  the  immediate 
discussion  of  the  great  question  it  involved,  afterwards, 
on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Mercer,  of  Virginia,  its  consider- 
ation was  postponed  for  several  weeks  ;  all  which,  be 
it  observed,  is  in  open  contrast  with  the  manner  in 
which  the  present  discussion  has  been  precipitated 
upon  Congress.  Meanwhile,  the  Maine  Bill,  when 
reported  to  the  House,  was  promptly  acted  upon,  and 
sent  to  the  Senate. 

In  the  interval  between  the  report  of  the  Missouri 
Bill  and  its  consideration  by  the  House,  a  Committee 
was  constituted  on  motion  of  Mr.  Taylor,  of  New  York, 
to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  prohibiting  the  intro- 
duction of  Slavery  into  the  Territories  west  of  the 
Mississippi.  This  Committee,  at  the  end  of  a  fortnight, 
was  discharged  from  further  consideration  of  the  sub- 
ject, which,  it  was  understood,  would  enter  into  the 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  273 

•» 

postponed  debate  on  the  Missouri  Bill.  This  early 
effort  to  interdict  Slavery  in  the  Territories  by  a 
special  law,  is  worthy  of  notice,  on  account  of  some  of 
the  expressions  of  opinion  which  it  drew  forth.  In  the 
course  of  his  remarks,  Mr.  Taylor  declared,  that  "  he 
presumed  there  were  no  members  —  he  knew  of  none 
—  who  doubted  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress 
to  impose  such  a  restriction  on  the  Territories." 

A  generous  voice  from  Virginia  recognized  at  once 
the  right  and  duty  of  Congress.  This  was  from 
Charles  Fenton  Mercer,  who  declared  that  "When 
the  question  proposed  should  come  fairly  before  the 
House,  he  should  support  the  proposition.  He  should 
record  his  vote  against  suffering  the  dark  cloud  of 
inhumanity,  which  now  darkened  his  country,  from 
rolling  on  beyond  the  peaceful  shores  of  the  Missis- 
sippi." 

At  length,  on  the  26th  January,  1820,  the  House 
resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the 
Missouri  Bill,  and  proceeded  with  its  discussion,  day 
by  day,  till  the  28th  February,  when  it  was  reported 
back  with  amendments.  But  meanwhile  the  same 
question  was  presented  to  the  Senate,  where  a  conclu- 
sion was  reached  earlier  than  in  the  House.  A  clause 
for  the  admission  of  Missouri  was  moved  by  way  of 
tack  to  the  Maine  Bill.  To  this  an  amendment  was 
moved  by  Mr.  Roberts,  of  Pennsylvania,  prohibiting 
the  further  introduction  of  Slavery  into  the  State, 
which,  after  a  fortnight's  debate,  was  defeated  by 
twenty-seven  nays  to  sixteen  yeas. 

The  debate  in  the  Senate  was  of  unusual  interest 
and  splendor.  It  was  especially  illustrated  by  an  effort 
of  transcendent  power  from  that  great  lawyer  and 


274        THE  LANDMARK  OF  FREEDOM ; 

•  .  «•>•' 

orator,  William  Pinkney.  Recently  returned  from  a 
succession  of  missions  to  foreign  courts,  and  at  this 
time  the  acknowledged  chief  of  the  American  bar, 
particularly  skilled  in  questions  of  constitutional  law, 
his  course  as  a  Senator  from  Maryland  was  calculated 
to  produce  a  profound  impression.  In  a  speech  which 
for  two  days  drew  to  this  chamber  an  admiring  throng, 
and  at  the  time  was  fondly  compared  with  the  best 
examples  of  Greece  and  Rome,  he  first  authoritatively 
proposed  and  developed  the  Missouri  Compromise. 
His  masterly  effort  was  mainly  directed  against  the 
restriction  upon  Missouri,  but  it  began  and  ended 
with  the  idea  of  compromise.  "Notwithstanding,"  he 
says,  "  occasional  appearances  of  rather  an  unfavorable 
description,  I  have  long  since  persuaded  myself  that 
the  Missouri  question,  as  it  is  called,  might  be  laid  to 
rest,  with  innocence  and  safety,  by  some  conciliatory 
Compromise  at  least,  by  which,  as  is  our  duty,  we 
might  reconcile  the  extremes  of  conflicting  views  and 
feelings,  without  any  sacrifice  of  constitutional  princi- 
ples." And  he  closed  with  the  hope  that  the  restric- 
tion on  Missouri  would  not  be  pressed,  but  that  the 
whole  question  "  might  be  disposed  of  in  a  manner 
satisfactory  to  all,  by  a  positive  prohibition  of  Slavery 
in  the  Territory  to  the  north  and  west  of  Missouri." 

This  authoritative  proposition  of  Compromise,  from 
the  most  powerful  advocate  of  the  unconditional  admis- 
sion of  Missouri,  was  made  in  the  Senate  on  the  21st 
January.  From  various  indications,  it  seems  to  have 
found  prompt  favor  in  that  body.  Finally,  on  the  1 7th 
February,  the  union  of  Maine  and  Missouri  in  one  Bill 
prevailed  there,  by  twenty-three  yeas  to  twenty-one 
nays.  On  the  next  day,  Mr.  Thomas,  of  Illinois,  who 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  275 

had  always  voted  with  the  South  against  any  restriction 
upon  Missouri,  introduced  the  famous  clause  prohibit- 
ing Slavery  north  of  36°  30',  which  now  constitutes 
the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act.  An  effort  was 
made  to  include  the  Arkansas  Territory  within  this 
prohibition  ;  but  the  South  united  against  this  exten- 
sion of  the  area  of  Freedom,  and  it  was  defeated  by 
twenty-four  nays  to  twenty  yeas.  The  prohibition,  as 
moved  by  Mr.  Thomas,  then  prevailed,  by  thirty-four 
yeas  to  only  ten  nays.  Among  those  in  the  affirmative 
were  both  the  Senators  from  each  of  the  Slave  States, 
Louisiana,  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Delaware,  Maryland 
and  Alabama,  and  also  one  of  the  Senators  from  each 
of  the  Slave  States,  Mississippi  and  North  Carolina, 
including  in  the  honorable  list  the  familiar  names  of 
William  Pinkney,  James  Brown  and  William  Rufus 
King. 

This  Bill,  thus  amended,  is  the  first  legislative  em- 
bodiment of  the  Missouri  Compact  or  Compromise,  the 
essential  conditions  of  which  were,  the  admission  of 
Missouri  as  a  State  without  any  restriction  of  Slavery ; 
and  the  prohibition  of  Slavery  in  all  the  remaining 
territory  of  Louisiana  north  of  36°  30'.  Janus-faced, 
with  one  front  towards  Freedom  and  another  towards 
Slavery,  this  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  simpler 
proposition  of  Mr.  Taylor,  at  the  last  session,  to  pro- 
hibit Slavery  in  all  the  territory  north  of  36°  30', 
including  Missouri.  The  Compromise  now  brought 
forward  —  following  the  early  lead  of  Mr.  McLane  — 
both  recognized  and  prohibited  Slavery  north  of  36° 
30'.  Here,  for  the  first  time,  these  two  opposite  prin- 
ciples commingled  in  one  legislative  channel ;  and  it  is 
immediately  subsequent  to  this  junction  that  we  dis- 


276  THE    LANDMARK    OF    FREEDOM  ; 

cern  the  precise  responsibility  assumed  by  different 
parties.  And  now  observe  the  indubitable  and  decisive 
feet.  This  Bill,  thus  composed,  containing  these  two 
elements  —  this  double  measure  —  finally  passed  the 
Senate  by  a  test  vote  of  twenty-four  yeas  to  twenty 
nays.  The  yeas  embraced  every  Southern  Senator,  ex- 
cept Nathaniel  Macon,  of  North  Carolina,  and  William 
Smith,  of  South  Carolina. 

Mr.  BUTLER,  of  S.  C.  (interrupting).  Mr.  Gaillard, 
of  South  Carolina,  voted  with  Mr.  Smith. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  No,  sir.  The  journal,  which  I  now 
hold  in  my  hand,  shows  that  he  voted  for  the  Compro- 
mise. I  repeat,  that  the  yeas  on  this  vital  question 
embraced  every  Southern  Senator,  except  Mr.  Macon 
and  Mr.  Smith.  The  nays  embraced  every  Northern 
Senator,  except  the  two  Senators  from  Illinois  and  one 
Senator  from  Rhode  Island,  and  one  from  New  Hamp- 
shire. And  this,  sir,  is  the  record  of  the  first  stage 
in  the  adoption  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  First 
openly  announced  and  vindicated  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate,  by  a  distinguished  Southern  statesman,  it  was 
forced  on  the  North  by  an  almost  unanimous  Southern 
vote. 

While  things  had  thus  culminated  in  the  Senate, 
discussion  was  still  proceeding  in  the  other  House  on 
the  original  Missouri  Bill.  This  was  for  a  moment 
arrested  by  the  reception  from  the  Senate  of  the  Maine 
Bill,  embodying  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Upon  this 
the  debate  was  brief  and  the  decision  prompt.  But 
here,  even  at  this  stage,  as  at  every  other,  a  Southern 
statesman  intervenes.  Mr.  Smith,  of  Maryland,  for 
many  years  an  eminent  Senator  of  that  State,  but  at 
this  time  a  representative,  while  opposing  the  restric- 


FREEDOM   NATIONAL.  277 

tion  of  Missouri,  vindicated  the  prohibition  of  Slavery 
in  the  Territories,  and  thus  practically  accepted  the 
Compromise  : 

"  Mr.  S.  Smith  said  that  he  rose  principally  with  a  view  to 
state  his  understanding  of  the  proposed  amendment,  viz.  :  That 
it  retained  the  boundaries  of  Missouri  as  delineated  in  the  Bill  ; 
that  it  prohibited  the  admission  of  slaves  west  of  the  west  line  of 
Missouri,  and  north  of  the  north  line  ;  that  it  did  not  interfere 
•with  the  Territory  of  Arkansas,  or  the  uninhabited  land  west 
thereof.  He  thought  the  proposition  not  exceptionable,  but 
doubted  the  propriety  of  its  forming  a  part  of  the  Bill.  He 
considered  the  power  of  Congress  over  the  Territory  as  supreme, 
unlimited,  before  its  admission  ;  that  Congress  could  impose  on 
its  Territories  any  restriction  it  thought  proper  ;  that  if  citizens 
go  into  the  Territories  thus  restx-icted,  they  cannot  carry  with 
them  slaves.  They  will  be  without  slaves,  and  will  be  educated 
with  prejudices  and  habits  such  as  will  exclude  all  desire,  on 
their  part,  to  admit  Slavery  when  they  shall  become  sufficiently 
numerous  to  be  admitted  as  a  State.  And  this  is  the  advantage 
proposed  by  the  amendment" 

But  the  House  was  not  disposed  to  abandon  the 
substantial  restriction  of  Slavery  in  Missouri,  for  what 
seemed  its  unsubstantial  prohibition  in  an  unsettled 
Territory.  The  Compromise  was  rejected,  and  the  Bill 
left  in  its  original  condition.  This  was  done  by  large 
votes.  Even  the  prohibition  of  Slavery  was  thrown 
out  by  one  hundred  and  fifty-nine  yeas  to  eighteen 
nays,  both  the  North  and  the  South  uniting  against  it ; 
though,  in  this  small  but  persistent  minority,  we  find 
two  Southern  statesmen,  Samuel  Smith  and  Charles 
Fenton  Mercer.  The  Senate,  on  receiving  the  Bill 
back  from  the  House,  insisted  on  their  amendments. 
The  House  in  turn  insisted  on  their  disagreement. 
According  to  parliamentary  usage,  a  Committee  of 
24 


278  THE    lANDSLA-RK    OF    FREEDOM  J 

Conference  between  the  two  Houses  was  appointed. 
Mr.  Thomas,  of  Illinois,  Mr.  Pinkney,  of  Maryland, 
and  Mr.  James  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  composed  this 
important  Committee  on  the  part  of  the  Senate  ;  and 
Mr.  Holmes,  of  Maine,  Mr.  Taylor,  of  New  York,  Mr. 
Lowndes,  of  South  Carolina,  Mr.  Parker,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, and  Mr.  Kinsey,  of  New  Jersey,  on  the  part 
of  the  House. 

Meanwhile,  the  House  had  voted  on  the  original 
Missouri  Bill.  An  amendment,  peremptorily  inter- 
dicting all  Slavery  in  the  new  State,  was  adopted  by 
ninety-four  yeas  to  eighty-six  nays  ;  and  thus  the  Bill 
passed  the  House,  and  was  sent  to  the  Senate  on  the 
1st  March.  Thus,  after  an  exasperated  and  protracted 
discussion,  the  two  Houses  were  at  a  dead-lock.  The 
double-headed  Missouri  Compromise  was  the  ulti- 
matum of  the  Senate.  The  restriction  of  Slavery  in 
Missouri,  involving,  of  course,  its  prohibition  in  all 
the  unorganized  Territories,  was  the  ultimatum  of  the 
House. 

At  this  stage,  on  the  2d  March,  the  Committee 
of  Conference  made  their  report,  which  was  urged  at 
once  upon  the  House  by  Mr.  Lowndes,  the  distin- 
guished representative  from  South  Carolina,  and  one 
of  her  most  precious  sons.  And  here  sir,  at  the  men- 
tion of  this  name,  still  so  fragrant  among  us,  let  me 
for  one  moment  stop  this  current  of  history,  to  express 
the  tender  admiration  with  which  I  am  inspired.  Mr. 
Lowndes  died  before  my  memory  of  political  events ; 
but  he  is  still  endeared  by  the  self-abnegation  of  a 
single  utterance  —  that  the  Presidency  is  an  office  not 
to  be  sought  or  declined  —  a  sentiment,  which,  by  ita 
beauty,  in  one  part  at  least,  shames  the  vileness  of 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL. 

aspiration  in  our  day,  and  will  ever  live  as  an  amaran- 
thine flower.  Such  a  man,  on  any  occasion,  would  be 
a  host ;  but  he  now  threw  his  great  soul  into  the 
work.  He  even  objected  to  a  motion  to  print  the 
report,  on  the  ground  "  that  it  would  imply  a  deter- 
mination in  the  House  to  delay  a  decision  of  the 
subject  to-day,  which  he  had  hoped  the  House  was 
fully  prepared  for."  The  question  then  came  on 
striking  out  the  restriction  in  the  Missouri  Bill.  The 
report  in  the  National  Intelligencer  says  : 

"  Mr.  Lowndes  spoke  briefly  in  support  of  the  Compromise 
recommended  by  the  Committee  of  Conference,  and  urged  with 
great  earnestness  the  propriety  of  a  decision  which  would  re- 
store tranquillity  to  the  country,  which  was  demanded  by  every 
consideration  of  discretion,  of  moderation,  of  wisdom  and  of 
virtue. 

"  Mr.  Mercer,  of  Virginia,  followed  on  the  same  side  with 
great  earnestness,  and  had  spoken  about  half  an  hour,  when  he 
was  compelled,  by  indisposition,  to  resume  his  seat." 

Such  efforts,  pressed  with  Southern  ardor,  were  not 
unavailing.  In  conformity  with  the  report  of  the 
Committee,  the  whole  question  was  forthwith  put  at 
rest.  Maine  and  Missouri  were  each  admitted  into 
the  Union  as  independent  States.  The  restriction  of 
Slavery  in  Missouri  was  abandoned  by  a  vote  in  the 
House  of  ninety  yeas  to  eighty-seven  nays  ;  and  the 
prohibition  of  Slavery  in  Territories  north  of  36°  30', 
exclusive  of  Missouri,  was  substituted  by  a  vote  of 
one  hundred  and  thirty-four  yeas  to  forty-two  nays. 
Among  the  distinguished  Southern  names  in  the 
affirmative,  are  Louis  McLane,  of  Delaware ;  Samuel 
Smith,  of  Maryland ;  William  Lowndes,  of  South 
Carolina ;  and  Charles  Fenton  Mercer,  of  Virginia. 


280  THE    LANDMARK    OF    FREEDOM; 

The  title  of  the  Missouri  Bill  was  amended  in  con- 
formity with  this  prohibition,  by  adding  the  words, 
"  and  to  prohibit  Slavery  in  certain  Territories."  The 
bills  then  passed  both  Houses  without  a  division ;  and, 
on  the  morning  of  the  3d  March,  1820,  the  National 
Intelligencer  contained  an  exulting  article,  entitled 
"The  Question  Settled." 

Another  paper,  published  in  Baltimore,  immediately 
after  the  passage  of  the  Compromise,  vindicated  it  as  a 
perpetual  compact,  which  could  not  be  disturbed.  The 
language  is  so  clear  and  strong  that  I  will  read  it, 
although  it  has  been  already  quoted  by  my  able  and 
most  excellent  friend  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Chase]  : 

"  It  is  true  the  Compromise  is  supported  only  by  the  letter  of 
the  law,  repealable  by  the  authority  which  enacted  it ;  but  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  give  this  law  a  MORAL  FORCE  equal  to 
that  of  a  positive  provision  of  the  Constitution  ;  and  we  do  not 
hazard  anything  by  saying  that  the  Constitution  exists  in  its 
observance.  Both  parties  have  sacrificed  much  to  conciliation. 
We  wish  to  see  the  COMPACT  kept  in  good  faith,  and  we  trust  that 
a  kind  Providence  will  open  the  way  to  relieve  us  of  an  evil 
which  every  good  citizen  deprecates  as  the  supreme  curse  of 
the  country."  —  JViles's  Register. 

Sir,  the  distinguished  leaders  in  this  settlement  were 
all  from  the  South.  As  early  as  February,  1819,  Louis 
McLane,  of  Delaware,  had  urged  it  upon  Congress, 
in  the  form  of  "  compact  binding  upon  all  subsequent 
Legislatures."  It  was  in  1820  brought  forward  and 
upheld  in  the  Senate  by  William  Pinkney,  of  Mary- 
land, and  passed  in  that  body  by  the  vote  of  every 
Southern  Senator  except  two,  against  the  vote  of  every 
Northern  Senator  except  four.  In  the  House,  it  was 
welcomed  at  once  by  Samuel  Smith,  of  Maryland,  and 
Charles  Fenton  Mercer,  of  Virginia.  The  Committee 


FBEEDOSI    NATIONAL.  281 

of  Conference,  through  which  it  finally  prevailed,  was 
filled,  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  with  inflexible  parti- 
sans of  the  South,  such  as  might  fitly  represent  the 
sentiments  of  its  President,  John  Gaillard,  a  Senator 
from  South  Carolina  ;  on  the  part  of  the  House,  it  was 
nominated  by  Henry  Clay,  the  Speaker,  and  Represen- 
tative from  Kentucky.  This  Committee,  thus  consti- 
tuted, drawing  its  double  life  from  the  South,  was 
„  unanimous  in  favor  of  the  Compromise.  A  private 
letter  from  Mr.  Pinkney,  written  at  the  time,  and  pre- 
served by  his  distinguished  biographer,  shows  that  the 
report  made  by  the  Committee  came  from  him : 

"  The  bill  for  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  (with- 
out restriction  as  to  Slavery)  may  be  considered  as  past.  That 
bill  was  sent  back  again  this  morning  from  the  House,  with  the 
restriction  as  to  Slavery.  The  Senate  voted  to  amend  it  by 
striking  out  the  restriction  (twenty-seven  to  fifteen),  and  pro- 
posed, as  another  amendment,  what  I  have  all  along  been  the 
advocate  of,  a  restriction  upon  the  vacant  territory  to  the  north 
and  west,  as  to  Slavery.  To-night  the  House  of  Representatives 
have  agreed  to  both  of  these  amendments,  in  opposition  to  their 
former  votes,  and  this  afifair  is  settled.  To-morrow  we  shall  (of 
course)  recede  from  our  amendments  as  to  Maine  (our  object 
being  effected),  and  both  States  will  be  admitted.  This  happy 
result  has  been  accomplished  by  the  Conference,  of  which  I  was 
a  member  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  and  of  which  I  proposed  the 
report  which  has  been  made." —  Wheaton's  Life  of  Pinkney. 

Thus  again  the  Compromise  takes  its  life  from  the 
South.  Proposed  in  the  Committee  by  Mr.  Pinkney, 
it  was  urged  on  the  House  of  Representatives,  with 
great  earnestness,  by  Mr.  Lowndes,  of  South  Carolina, 
and  Mr.  Mercer,  of  Virginia ;  and  here  again  is  the 
most  persuasive  voice  of  the  South.  When  passed  by 
Congress,  it  next  came  before  the  President,  James 
24* 


THE    LANDMABK    OF    FBEEDOM  ; 

Monroe,  of  Virginia,  for  his  approval,  who  did  not 
sign  it  till  after  the  unanimous  opinion,  in  writing,  of 
his  Cabinet,  composed  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  Wil- 
liam H.  Crawford,  Smith  Thompson,  John  C.  Calhoun, 
and  William  Wirt  —  a  majority  of  whom  were 
Southern  men  —  that  the  prohibition  of  Slavery  in 
the  Territories  was  constitutional.  Thus  yet  again 
the  Compromise  takes  its  life  from  the  South. 

As  the  Compromise  took  its  life  from  the  South,  so 
the  South,  in  the  judgment  of  its  own  statesmen  at  the 
time,  and  according  to  unquestionable  facts,  was  the 
conquering  party.  It  gained  forthwith  its  darling 
desire,  the  first  and  essential  stage  in  the  admission  of 
Missouri  as  a  Slave  State,  successfully  consummated 
at  the  next  session ;  and  subsequently  the  admission 
of  Arkansas,  also  as  a  Slave  State.  From  the  crushed 
and  humbled  North,  it  received  more  than  the  full 
consideration  stipulated  in  its  favor.  On  the  side  of 
the  North  the  contract  has  been  more  than  executed. 
And  now  the  South  refuses  to  perform  the  part  which 
it  originally  proposed  and  assumed  in  this  transaction. 
With  the  consideration  in  its  pocket,  it  repudiates  the 
bargain  which  it  forced  upon  the  country.  This,  sir, 
is  a  simple  statement  of  the  present  question. 

A  subtle  German  has  declared,  that  he  could  find 
heresies  in  the  Lord's  Prayer  —  and  I  believe  it  is  only 
in  this  spirit  that  any  flaw  can  be  found  in  the  existing 
obligations  of  this  compact.  As  late  as  1848,  in  the 
discussions  of  this  body,  the  Senator  from  Virginia, 
who  usually  sits  behind  me  [Mr.  Mason],  but  who  is 
not  now  in  his  seat,  while  condemning  it  in  many 
aspects,  says : 

"  Yet  as  it  was  agreed  to  as  a  Compromise  by  the  South  for 


FBEEDOM    NATIONAL.  283 

the  sake  of  the  Union,  I  would  be  the  last  to  disturb  it."  — 
Cong.  Globe,  Appendix,  1st  sess.  30th  Cong.,  vol.  xix.  p.  887. 

Even  tliis  determined  Senator  recognized  it  as  an 
obligation  which  he  would  not  disturb.  And,  though 
disbelieving  the  original  constitutionality  of  the  ar- 
rangement, he  was  clearly  right.  I  know,  sir,  that  it 
is  in  form  simply  a  legislative  Act ;  but  as  the  Act  of 
Settlement  in  England,  declaring  the  rights  and  liber- 
ties of  the  subject,  and  settling  the  succession  of  the 
Crown,  has  become  a  permanent  part  of  the  British 
Constitution,  irrepealable  by  any  common  legislation, 
so  this  Act  under  all  the  circumstances  attending  its 
passage,  also  by  long  acquiescence  and  the  complete 
performance  of  its  conditions  by  one  party,  has  become 
a  part  of  our  fundamental  law,  irrepealable  by  any 
common  legislation.  As  well  might  Congress  at  this 
moment  undertake  to  overhaul  the  original  purchase 
of  Louisiana,  as  unconstitutional,  and  now,  on  this 
account,  thrust  away  that  magnificent  heritage,  with  all 
its  cities,  States  and  territories,  teeming  with  civiliza- 
tion. The  Missouri  Compact,  in  its  unperformed  obli- 
gations to  Freedom,  stands  at  this  day  as  impregnable 
as  the  Louisiana  purchase. 

I  appeal  to  Senators  about  me,  not  to  disturb  it.  I 
appeal  to  the  Senators  from  Virginia,  to  keep  inviolate 
the  compact  made  in  their  behalf  by  James  Barbour 
and  Charles  Fenton  Mercer.  I  appeal  to  the  Senators 
from  South  Carolina,  to  guard  the  work  of  John  Gail- 
lard  and  William  Lowndes.  I  appeal  to  the  Senators 
from  Maryland,  to  uphold  the  Compromise  which 
elicited  the  constant  support  of  Samuel  Smith,  and 
was  first  triumphantly  pressed  by  the  unsurpassed 
eloquence  of  Pinkney.  I  appeal  to  the  Senators  from, 


284  THE    LANDMABK    OF    FREEDOM; 

Delaware,  to  maintain  the  landmark  of  Freedom  in  the 
Territory  of  Louisiana,  early  espoused  by  Louis  Mc- 
Lane.  I  appeal  to  the  Senators  from  Kentucky,  not 
to  repudiate  the  pledges  of  Henry  Clay.  I  appeal  to 
the  Senators  from  Alabama,  not  to  break  the  agree- 
ment sanctioned  by  the  earliest  votes  in  the  Senate  of 
their  late  most  cherished  fellow-citizen,  William  Rufus 
King.  Sir,  I  have  heard  of  an  honor  that  felt  a  stain 
like  a  wound.  .  If  there  be  any  such  in  this  chamber  — 
as  surely  there  is  —  it  will  hesitate  to  take  upon  itself 
the  stain  of  this  transaction. 

Sir,  Congress  may  now  set  aside  this  obligation, 
repudiate  this  plighted  faith,  annul  this  compact ;  and 
some  of  you,  forgetful  of  the  majesty  of  honest  dealing, 
in  order  to  support  Slavery,  may  consider  it  advanta- 
geous to  use  this  power.  To  all  such  let  me  commend 
a  familiar  story :  An  eminent  leader  in  antiquity, 
Themistocles,  once  announced  to  the  Athenian  Assem- 
bly, that  he  had  a  scheme  to  propose,  highly  beneficial 
to  the  State,  but  which  could  not  be  expounded  to  the 
many.  Aristides,  surnamed  the  Just,  was  appointed 
to  receive  the  secret,  and  to  report  upon  it.  His  brief 
and  memorable  judgment  was,  that,  while  nothing 
could  be  more  advantageous  to  Athens,  nothing  could 
be  more  unjust ;  and  the  Athenian  multitude,  respond- 
ing at  once,  rejected  the  proposition.  It  appears  that 
it  was  proposed  to  burn  the  combined  Greek  fleet, 
which  then  rested  in  the  security  of  peace  in  a  neigh- 
boring sea,  and  thus  confirm  the  naval  supremacy  of 
Athens.  A  similar  proposition  is  now  brought  before 
the  American  Senate.  You  are  asked  to  destroy  a 
safeguard  of  Freedom,  consecrated  by  solemn  compact, 
under  which  the  country  is  now  reposing  in  the  secu- 


.     I       FEEEDOM    NATIONAL.  285 

rity  of  peace,  and  thus  confirm  the  supremacy  of 
Slavery.  To  this  institution  and  its  partisans  the 
proposition  may  seem  to  be  advantageous  ;  but  nothing 
can  be  more  unjust.  Let  the  judgment  of  the  Athenian 
multitude  be  yours. 

This  is  what  I  have  to  say  upon  this  head.  I  now 
pass  to  the  second  branch  of  the  argument. 

II.  Mr.  President,  it  is  not  only  as  an  infraction 
of  solemn  compact,  embodied  in  ancient  law,  that  I 
arraign  this  bill.  I  arraign  it  also  as  a  flagrant  and 
extravagant  departure  from  the  original  policy  of  our 
fathers,  consecrated  by  their  lives,  opinions  and  acts. 

And  here,  sir,  bear  with  me  in  a  brief  recital  of 
unquestionable  facts.  At  the  period  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  there  was  upwards  of  half  a  million 
colored  persons  in  slavery  throughout  the  United  Colo- 
nies. These  unhappy  people  were  originally  stolen 
from  Africa,  or  were  the  children  of  those  who  had 
been  stolen,  and,  though  distributed  throughout  the 
whole  country,  were  to  be  found  in  largest  number  in 
the  Southern  States.  But  the  spirit  of  Freedom  then 
prevailed  in  the  land.  The  fathers  of  the  Republic, 
leaders  in  the  war  of  Independence,  were  struck  with 
the  inconsistency  of  an  appeal  for  their  own  liberties, 
while  holding  in  bondage  their  fellow-men,  only  "  guilty 
of  a  skin  not  colored  like  their  own."  The  same  con- 
viction animated  the  hearts  of  the  people,  whether  at 
the  North  or  South.  In  a  town  meeting,  at  Danbury, 
Connecticut,  held  on  the  12th  December,  1778,  the 
following  declaration  was  made  : 

"  It  is  with  singular  pkasure  we  note  the  second  article  of  the 
Association,  in  which  it  is  agreed  to  import  no  more  negro 


286  THE    LA.XDMAKK    OF    FREEDOM; 

slaves,  as  we  cannot  but  think  it  a  palpable  absurdity  so  loudly 
to  complain  of  attempts  to  enslave  us  while  we  are  actually  en- 
slaving others.  —  Am..  Archives,  4th  Series,  vol.  i.  p.  1038. 

The  South  responded  in  similar  strains.  At  a 
meeting  in  Darien,  Georgia,  in  1775,  the  following 
important  resolution  was  put  forth : 

"  To  show  the  world  that  we  are  not  influenced  by  any  con- 
tracted or  interested  motives,  but  by  a  general  philanthropy  for 
all  mankind,  of  whatever  climate,  language,  or  complexion,  we 
hereby  declare  our  disapprobation  and  abhorrence  of  the  un- 
natural practice  of  Slavery  in  (however  the  uncultivated  state 
of  the  country  or  other  specious  arguments  may  plead  for  it)  a 
practice  founded  in  injustice  and  cruelty,  and  highly  dangerous 
to  our  liberties  as  well  as  lives,  debasing  part  of  our  fellow- 
creatures  below  men  and  corrupting  the  virtue  and  morals  of 
the  rest,  and  laying  the  basis  of  that  liberty  we  contend  for,  and 
which  we  pray  the  Almighty  to  continue  to  the  latest  posterity, 
upon  a  very  wrong  foundation.  We  therefore  resolve  at  all 
times  to  use  our  utmost  endeavors  for  the  manumission  of  our 
slaves  in  this  Colony,  upon  the  most  safe  and  equitable  footing 
for  the  masters  and  themselves."  —  Am.  Archives,  4th  Series, 
vol.  i.  p.  1135. 

The  soul  of  Virginia,  during  this  period,  found 
fervid  utterance  through  Jefferson,  who,  by  precocious 
and  immortal  words,  has  enrolled  himself  among  the 
earliest  Abolitionists  of  the  country.  In  his  address 
to  the  Virginia  Convention  of  1774,  he  openly  avowed, 
while  vindicating  the  rights  of  British  America,  that 
"  the  abolition  of  domestic  Slavery  is  the  greatest  ob- 
ject of  desire  in  these  Colonies,  where  it  was  unhappily 
introduced  in  their  infant  state."  And  then  again,  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  he  embodied  senti- 
ments, which,  when  practically  applied,  will  give  Free- 
dom to  every  slave  throughout  the  land.  "  We  hold 


FKEEDOM    NATIONAL.  287 

these  truths  to  be  self-evident,"  says  our  country, 
speaking  by  the  voice  of  Jefferson,  "  that  all  men  are 
created  equal  —  that  they  are  endowed  with  certain 
inalienable  rights  —  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  And  again,  in  the 
Congress  of  the  Confederation,  he  brought  forward,  as 
early  as  1784,  a  resolution  to  exclude  Slavery  from  all 
the  territory  "ceded  or  to  be  ceded"  by  the  States  of 
the  Federal  Government,  including  the  whole  territory 
now  covered  by  Tennessee,  Mississippi  and  Alabama. 
Lost  at  first  by  a  single  vote  only,  this  measure  was 
renewed  in  a  more  restricted  form,  at  a  subsequent 
day,  by  a  son  of  Massachusetts,  and  in  1787  was  finally 
confirmed  in  the  Ordinance  of  the  Northwestern  Terri- 
tory, by  a  unanimous  vote  of  the  States. 

Thus  early  and  distinctly  do  we  discern  the  Anti- 
Slavery  character  of  the  founders  of  our  Republic,  and 
their  determination  to  place  the  National  Government, 
within  the  sphere  of  its  jurisdiction,  openly,  actively 
and  perpetually,  on  the  side  of  Freedom. 

The  National  Constitution  was  adopted  in  1788. 
And  here  we  discern  the  same  spirit.  The  emphatic 
words  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  our 
country  took  upon  its  lips  as  baptismal  vows,  Avhen  it 
claimed  its  place  among  the  nations  of  the  earth, 
were  not  forgotten.  The  preamble  to  the  Constitution 
renews  them,  when  it  declares  its  object  to  be,  among 
other  things,  "to  establish  justice,  to  promote  the  gen- 
eral welfare,  and  to  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to 
ourselves  and  posterity."  Thus,  according  to  undeniable 
words,  the  Constitution  was  ordained,  not  to  establish, 
secure,  or  sanction  Slavery  —  not  to  promote  the  special 
interest  of  slaveholders  —  not  to  make  Slavery  national 


288  THE    LAND3IAB.K    OF    FREEDOM  ; 

in  any  way,  form,  or  manner  —  not  to  foster  this  great 
wrong,  but  to  "  establish  justice,"  "  promote  the  gen- 
eral welfare,"  and  "secure  the  blessings  of  Liberty." 
The  discreditable  words  Slave  and  Slavery  were  not 
allowed  to  find  a  place  in  this  instrument,  while  a 
clause  was  subsequently  added  by  way  of  amendment, 
and,  therefore,  according  to  the  rules  of  interpretation, 
particularly  revealing  the  sentiments  of  the  founders, 
which  is  calculated,  like  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence, if  practically  applied,  to  carry  Freedom  every- 
where within  the  sphere  of  its  influence.  It  was 
specifically  declared,  that  "  no  person  shall  be  deprived 
of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process  of 
law  ; "  that  is,  without  due  presentment,  indictment, 
or  other  judicial  proceeding.  Here  is  an  express 
guard  of  personal  Liberty,  and  an  express  interdict 
upon  slavery  anywhere  within  the  national  jurisdic- 
tion. 

It  is  evident,  from  the  debates  on  the  National 
Constitution,  that  Slavery,  like  the  Slave  trade,  was 
regarded  as  temporary  ;  and  it  seems  to  have  been 
supposed  by  many  that  they  would  both  disappear 
together.  Nor  do  any  words  employed  in  our  day 
denounce  it  with  an  indignation  more  burning  than 
those  which  glowed  on  the  lips  of  the  Fathers.*  Early 
in  the  Convention,  Gouverneur  Morris,  of  Pennsylvania, 
broke  forth  in  the  language  of  an  Abolitionist :  "  He 
never  would  concur  in  upholding  domestic  Slavery. 
It  was  a  nefarious  institution.  It  was  the  curse  of 
Heaven."  In  another  mood,  and  with  mild,  juridical 
phrase,  Mr.  Madison  "  thought  it  wrong  to  admit  in 
the  Constitution  the  idea  of  property  in  man."  And 
Washington,  in  letters  written  near  this  period  — 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  289 

which  completely  describe  the  aims  of  an  Abolitionist 
—  avowed  "  that  it  was  among  his  first  wishes  to  see 
some  plan  adopted  by  which  Slavery  may  be  abolished 
by  law,"  and  that  to  this  end  "  his  suffrage  should  not 
be  wanting." 

In  this  spirit  was  the  National  Constitution  adopted. 
In  this  spirit  the  National  Government  was  first  organ- 
ized under  Washington.  And  here  there  is  a  fact  of 
peculiar  significance,  to  which  I  have  already,  on  a 
former  occasion,  called  attention,  but  which  is  well 
worthy  of  perpetual  memory.  At  the  time  that  this 
great  chief  took  his  first  oath  to  support  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  the  national  ensign  nowhere 
within  the  national  territory  covered  a  single  slave. 
On  the  sea,  an  execrable  piracy,  the  trade  in  slaves, 
was  still,  to  the  national  scandal,  tolerated  under  the 
national  flag.  In  the  States,  as  a  sectional  institution, 
beneath  the  shelter  of  local  laws,  Slavery  unhappily 
found  a  home.  But  in  the  only  Territories  at  this  time 
belonging  to  the  nation,  the  broad  region  of  the  North- 
west, it  had  already,  by  the  Ordinance  of  Freedom, 
been  made  impossible,  even  before  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution.  The  District  of  Columbia,  with  its  Fatal 
Dowry,  had  not  yet  been  acquired. 

Entering  upon  his  high  duties,  Washington,  himself 
an  Abolitionist,  was  surrounded  by  men,  who,  by  their 
lives  and  declared  opinions,  were  pledged  to  warfare 
with  Slavery.  There  was  John  Adams,  the  Vice  Pres- 
ident —  great  vindicator  and  final  negotiator  of  our 
National  Independence  —  whose  soul,  flaming  with 
Freedom,  broke  forth  in  the  early  declaration,  that 
"  consenting  to  Slavery  is  a  sacrilegious  breach  of 
trust,"  and  whose  immitigable  hostility  to  this  wrong 
25 


290  THE    LANDMARK    OF    FEEEDOM  ; 

has  been  made  immortal  in  his  descendants.  By  hia 
side,  also,  was  a  companion  in  arms  and  attached 
friend,  the  yet  youthful  and  "incomparable"  Hamil- 
ton—  fit  companion  in  early  fame  and  genius  with 
that  darling  of  English  history,  Sir  Philip  Sidney,  to 
whom  the  latter  epithet  has  been  reserved  —  who,  as  a 
member  of  the  Abolition  Society  of  New  York,  had 
only  recently  united  in  a  solemn  petition  for  those 
who,  "  though  free  by  the  laws  of  God,  are  held  in 
Slavery  by  the  laws  of  the  State."  There,  too,  was  a 
noble  spirit,  of  spotless  virtue,  and  commanding  influ- 
ence, the  ornament  of  human  nature,  who,  like  the 
sun,  ever  held  an  unerring  course,  John  Jay.  Filling 
the  important  post  of  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
under  the  Confederation,  he  found  time  to  organize  the 
Abolition  Society  of  New  York,  and  to  act  as  its  Presi- 
dent, until  by  the  nomination  of  Washington  he  be- 
came Chief  Justice  of  tie  United  States.  In  his  sight, 
Slavery  was  an  "  iniquity  "  —  "a  sin  of  crimson  dye," 
against  which  ministers  of  the  gospel  should  testify, 
and  which  the  Government  should  seek  in  every  way 
to  abolish.  "  Were  I  in  the  Legislature,"  he  wrote, 
"  I  would  present  a  bill  for  this  purpose  with  great 
care,  and  I  would  never  cease  moving  it  till  it  became 
a  law  or  I  ceased  to  be  a  member.  Till  America 
comes  into  this  measure,  her  prayers  to  Heaven  will 
be  impious."  By  such  men  was  Washington  sur- 
rounded, while  from  his  own  Virginia  came  the  voice 
of  Patrick  Henry,  amidst  confessions  that  he  was  a 
master  of  slaves,  crying,  "  I  will  not,  I  cannot  justify 
it.  However  culpable  my  conduct,  I  will  so  far  pay 
my  devoir  to  virtue  as  to  own  the  excellence  and 
rectitude  of  her  precepts,  and  lament  my  want  of  con- 


FBEEDOM    NATIONAL.  291 

formity  to  them."  Such  words  as  these,  fitly  coming 
from  our  leaders,  belong  to  the  true  glories  of  the 
country : 

"  While  we  such  precedents  can  boast  at  home, 
Keep  thy  Fabricius  and  thy  Cato,  Rome  !  " 

The  earliest  Congress  under  the  Constitution  adopted 
the  Ordinance  of  Freedom  for  the  Northwestern  Ter- 
ritory, and  thus  ratified  the  prohibition  of  Slavery  in 
all  the  existing  Territories  of  the  Union.  In  the  list 
of  those  who  sanctioned  this  act  were  men  fresh  from 
the  labors  of  the  Convention,  and  therefore  familiar 
with  its  policy.  But  there  is  another  voice  which  bears 
testimony  in  the  same  direction.  Among  the  petitions 
presented  to  the  first  Congress,  was  one  from  the  Abo- 
lition Society  of  Pennsylvania,  signed  by  Benjamin 
Franklin,  as  President.  This  venerable  votary  of  Free- 
dom, who  throughout  a  long  life  had  splendidly  served 
his  country  at  home  and  abroad — who,  as  statesman 
and  philosopher,  had  won  the  admiration  of  man- 
kind —  who  had  ravished  the  lightning  from  the  skies 
and  the  sceptre  from  the  tyrant  —  whose  name,  signed 
to  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  gave  added  im- 
portance even  to  that  great  instrument,  and  then  again 
signed  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  filled 
it  with  the  charm  of  wisdom  —  in  whom,  more  than 
in  any  other  man,  the  true  spirit  of  American  Institu- 
tions, at  once  practical  and  humane,  was  embodied  — 
who  knew  intimately  the  purposes  and  aspirations  of 
the  founders  —  this  veteran  statesman,  then  eighty- 
four  years  of  age,  appeared  at  the  bar  of  that  Congress, 
whose  powers  he  had  helped  to  define  and  establish, 
and,  by  the  last  political  act  of  his  long  life,  solemnly 
entreated  "  that  it  would  be  pleased  to  countenance 


292  THE    LANDMAEK    OF    FBEEDOM  J 

the  restoration  of  liberty  to  those  unhappy  men,  who 
alone,  in  this  land  of  Freedom,  are  degraded  into  per- 
petual bondage,"  and  "  that  it  would  step  to  the  very 
verge  of  the  power  vested  in  it  for  DISCOURAGING 
every  species  of  traffic  in  the  persons  of  our  fellow- 
men."  Only  a  short  time  after  uttering  this  prayer, 
the  patriot  sage  descended  to  the  tomb  ;  but  he  seems 
still  to  call  upon  Congress,  in  memorable  words,  to 
step  to  the  very  verge  of  the  powers  vested  in  it  to  dis- 
courage Slavery  ;  and  this  prayer,  now  sounding  from 
the  tomb  of  Franklin,  proclaims  the  true  national  policy 
of  the  Fathers.  Not  encouragement,  but  discouragement 
of  slavery,  not  its  nationalization,  but  its  denational- 
ization, was  their  rule. 

The  memorial  of  Franklin,  with  other  memorials  of 
a  similar  character,  was  referred  to  a  Committee,  and 
much  debated  in  the  House,  which  finally  sanctioned 
the  following  resolution,  and  directed  the  same  to  be 
entered  upon  its  journals,  viz  : 

"  That  Congress  have  no  authority  to  interfere  in  the  eman- 
cipation of  slaves,  or  in  the  treatment  of  them,  within  any  of  the 
States  ;  it  remaining  with  the  several  States  to  provide  any 
regulations  therein  which  humanity  may  require." 

This  resolution,  declaring  the  principle  of  non-inter- 
vention by  Congress  with  Slavery  in  the  States,  was 
adopted  by  the  same  Congress  which  had  solemnly 
affirmed  the  prohibition  of  Slavery  in  all  the  existing 
territory  of  the  Union ;  and  not  only  by  the  same 
Congress,  but  at  the  same  session,  so  that  one  may  be 
regarded  as  the  complement  of  the  other.  And  it  is 
on  these  double  acts,  at  the  first  organization  of  the 
Government,  and  the  recorded  sentiments  of  the 


FEEEDOM    NATIONAL.  293 

founders,  that  I  take  my  stand,  and  challenge  all 
question. 

At  this  time,  there  was  strictly  no  dividing  line  in  the 
country  between  Anti-Slavery  and  Pro-Slavery.  The 
Anti-Slavery  sentiment  was  thoroughly  national,  broad 
and  general,  pervading  alike  all  parts  of  the  Union, 
And  uprising  from  the  common  heart  of  the  entire 
people.  The  Pro-Slavery  interest  was  strictly  personal 
ind  pecuniary,  and  had  its  source  simply  in  the  self- 
interest  of  individual  slaveholders.  It  contemplated 
Slavery  only  as  a  domestic  institution  —  not  as  a 
political  element  —  and  merely  stipulated  for  its  se- 
curity where  it  actually  existed  within  the  States. 

Sir,  the  original  policy  of  the  country,  begun  under 
tne  Confederation,  and  recognized  at  the  initiation  of 
the  new  Government,  is  clear  and  unmistakable.  Com- 
pendiously expressed,  it  was  non-intervention  by  Con- 
gress with  Slavery  in  the  States,  and  its  prohibition  in 
all  the  national  domain.  In  this  way,  the  discordant 
feelings  on  this  subject  were  reconciled.  Slave-masters 
were  left  at  home  in  their  respective  States,  under  the 
protection  of  local  laws,  to  hug  Slavery  without  any 
interference  from  Congress,  while  all  opposed  to  it 
were  exempted  from  any  responsibility  therefor  in  the 
national  domain.  This,  sir,  is  the  common  ground  on 
-%vhich  our  political  fabric  was  reared ;  and  I  do  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  it  is  the  only  ground  on  which  it 
can  stand  in  permanent  peace. 

It  is  beyond  question,  sir,  that  our  Constitution  was 
framed  by  the  lovers  of  Human  Rights ;  that  it  was 
animated  by  their  divine  spirit ;  that  the  institution 
of  Slavery  was  regarded  by  them  with  aversion,  so 
that,  though  covertly  alluded  to,  it  was  not  named 
25* 


294  THE    LANDMABK    OF    FBEEDOM  ; 

in  the  instrument ;  that,  according  to  the  debates  in 
the  Convention,  they  refused  to  give  it  any  "  sanction," 
and  looked  forward  to  the  certain  day  when  it  would 
be  obliterated  from  the  land.  But  the  original  policy 
of  the  Government  did  not  long  prevail.  The  gener- 
ous sentiments  which  filled  the  early  patriots,  giving 
to  them  historic  grandeur,  gradually  lost  their  power. 
The  blessings  of  Freedom  being  already  secured  to 
themselves,  the  freemen  of  the  land  grew  indifferent  to 
the  freedom  of  others.  They  ceased  to  think  of  the 
slaves.  The  slave-masters  availed  themselves  of  this 
indifference,  and,  though  few  in  numbers,  compared 
with  the  non-slaveholders,  even  in  the  slave  States 
(according  to  the  late  census  they  are  fewer  than  three 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand),  they  have,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  an  imagined  self-interest,  by  the  skilful 
tactics  of  party,  and  especially  by  an  unhesitating,  per- 
severing union  among  themselves  —  swaying,  by  turns, 
both  the  great  political  parties  —  succeeded,  through 
a  long  succession  of  years,  in  obtaining  the  control  of 
the  National  Government,  bending  it  to  their  purposes, 
compelling  it  to  do  their  will,  and  imposing  upon  it  a 
policy  friendly  to  Slavery  —  offensive  to  Freedom  only 
—  and  directly  opposed  to  the  sentiments  of  its  found- 
ers. Our  Republic  has  swollen  in  population  and  power ; 
but  it  has  shrunk  in  character.  It  is  not  now  what  it 
was  in  the  beginning,  a  Republic  merely  permitting, 
while  it  regretted  Slavery  ;  tolerating  it  only  where  it 
could  not  be  removed,  and  interdicting  it  where  it  did 
not  exist  —  but  a  mighty  Propagandist,  openly  favor- 
ing and  vindicating  it ;  visiting,  also,  with  displeasure 
all  who  oppose  it. 

Sir,  our  country  early  reached  heights  which  it  could 


FKEEDOM    NATIONAL.  295 

not  keep.  Its  fall  was  gentle  but  complete.  At  the 
session  of  Congress  immediately  following  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  prohibition  of  Slavery  in  the  national 
domain,  a  transfer  of  the  territory  now  constituting 
Tennessee  was  accepted  from  North  Carolina  (2d  April, 
1790),  loaded  with  the  express  condition  "  that  no 
regulation  made,  or  to  be  made,  should  tend  to  eman- 
cipate slaves  ;  "  a  formal  provision,  which,  while  ad- 
mitting the  power  of  Congress  over  Slavery  in  the 
Territories,  waived  the  prevailing  policy  of  executing  it. 
This  was  followed,  in  1798,  by  the  transfer  from  Georgia 
of  the  region  between  her  present  western  limit  and 
the  Mississippi,  under  a  similar  condition.  In  both 
these  cases,  an  apology  may  be  found  in  the  very  terms 
of  the  transfers,  and  in  the  fact  that  the  region  consti- 
tuted a  part  of  two  States  where  Slavery  actually 
existed ;  though  it  will  be  confessed  that  even  here 
there  was  a  descent  from  that  summit  of.  Freedom  on 
which  the  Nation  had  so  proudly  rested : 

"  From  morn 

To  noon  he  fell  ;  from  noon  to  dewy  eve  — 
A  summer's  day,  and  with  the  setting  sun 
Drop'd  from  the  zenith,  like  a  falling  star." 

But,  without  tracing  this  downward  course  through 
its  successive  stages,  let  me  refer  to  facts,  which  too 
palpably  reveal  the  abyss  that  has  been  reached. 
Early  in  our  history,  no  man  was  disqualified  for 
public  office  by  reasons  of  his  opinions  on  this  subject ; 
and  this  condition  continued  for  a  long  period.  As 
late  as  1821,  John  W.  Taylor,  Representative  from 
New  York,  who  had  pressed  with  so  much  energy,  not 
merely  the  prohibition  of  Slavery  in  the  Territories, 
but  its  restriction  in  the  State  of  Missouri,  was  elected 


296  THE    LANDMARK    OF    FKEEDOM  ; 

to  the  chair  of  Henry  Clay,  as  Speaker  of  the  other 
House.  It  is  needless  to  add,  that  no  determined 
supporter  of  the  prohibition  of  Slavery  in  the  Terri- 
tories at  this  day  could  expect  that  eminent  trust. 
An  arrogant  and  unrelenting  ostracism  is  now  applied, 
not  only  to  all  who  express  themselves  against  Slavery, 
but  to  every  man  who  will  not  be  its  menial.  A  novel 
test  for  office  has  been  introduced,  which  would  have 
excluded  all  the  Fathers  of  the  Republic —  even  Wash- 
ington, Jefferson  and  Franklin.  Yes,  sir ;  startling 
it  may  be,  but  indisputable.  Could  these  illustrious 
men  descend  from  their  realms  above,  and  revisit  the 
land  which  they  once  nobly  dedicated  to  Freedom,  they 
could  not,  with  their  well-known  and  recorded  opinions 
against  Slavery,  receive  a  nomination  for  the  Presi- 
dency from  either  of  the  old  political  parties.  Nor 
could  John  Jay,  our  first  Chief  Justice,  and  great  ex- 
emplar of  Judicial  virtue  —  who  hated  Slavery  as  he 
loved  Justice  —  be  admitted  to  resume  those  duties 
with  which  his  name  on  earth  is  indissolubly  associated ; 
nor  could  either  of  the  patriots,  whose  names  are  now 
our  greatest  pride,  be  confirmed  by  the  Senate  for  any 
political  function  whatever.  To  such  lowest  deep  has 
our  Government  descended. 

These  things  prepare  us  to  comprehend  the  true 
character  of  the  change  with  regard  to  the  Territories. 
Jn  1787,  all  the  existing  national  domain  was  prompt- 
ly and  unanimously  dedicated  to  Freedom,  without 
opposition  or  criticism.  The  interdict  of  Slavery  then 
covered  every  inch  of  soil  belonging  to  the  National 
Government.  Louisiana,  an  immense  region  beyond 
the  bounds  of  the  original  States,  was  subsequently 
acquired,  and  in  1820,  after  a  vehement  struggle,  which 


FREEDOM   NATIONAL.  297 

shook  the  whole  land,  discomfited  Freedom  was  com- 
pelled, by  a  dividing  line,  to  a  partition  with  Slavery. 
This  arrangement,  which,  in  its  very  terms,  was  exclu- 
sively applicable  to  a  particular  territory  purchased 
from  France,  has  been  accepted  as  final  down  to  the 
present  session  of  Congress ;  but  now  sir,  here  in 
1854,  Freedom  is  suddenly  summoned  to  surrender 
even  her  hard-won  moiety.  Here  are  the  three  stages  : 
at  the  first,  all  is  consecrated  to  Freedom;  at  the 
second,  only  half;  while  at  the  third,  all  is  grasped 
by  Slavery.  Thus  is  the  original  policy  of  the  Gov- 
ernment absolutely  reversed.  Slavery,  which,  at  the 
beginning,  was  a  sectional  institution,  with  no  foothold 
anywhere  on  the  National  Territory,  is  now  exalted  as 
a  National  Institution,  and  all  our  broad  domain  is 
threatened  by  its  blighting  shadow. 

Thus  much  for  what  I  have  to  say,  at  this  time,  of 
the  original  policy,  consecrated  by  the  lives,  opinions 
and  acts  of  our  Fathers.  Summoning  to  my  side  the 
majestic  forms  of  those  civil  heroes,  whose  firmness  in 
council  was  only  equalled  by  the  firmness  of  Wash- 
ington in  war,  I  might  leave  the  cause  in  their  care. 
But  certain  reasons  are  adduced  for  the  proposed  de- 
parture from  their  great  example,  and,  though  these 
seem  of  little  validity,  yet  I  would  not  pass  them  in 
silence. 

The  Prohibition  of  Slavery  in  the  Territories  is 
assailed,  as  beyond  the  power  of  Congress,  and  an 
infringement  of  the  local  sovereignty.  On  this  account 
it  is,  at  this  late  day,  pronounced  unconstitutional. 
Now,  without  considering  minutely  the  sources  from 


298  THE    LANDMARK    OF    FREEDOM; 

which  the  power  of  Congress  over  the  national  domain 
is  derived  —  whether  from  the  express  grant  in  the 
Constitution  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the 
government  of  the  Territory,  or  from  the  power,  neces- 
sarily implied,  to  govern  Territory  acquired  by  con- 
quest or  purchase  —  it  seems  to  me  impossible  to  deny 
its  existence,  without  invalidating  a  large  portion  of 
the  legislation  of  the  country,  from  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution  down  to  the  present  day.  This 
power  was  asserted  before  the  Constitution.  It  was 
not  denied  or  prohibited  by  the  Constitution  itself. 
It  has  been  exercised  from  the  first  existence  of  the 
Government,  and  has  been  recognized  by  the  three  de- 
partments —  the  Executive,  the  Legislative  and  the 
Judicial.  Precedents  of  every  kind  are  thick  in  its 
support.  Indeed,  the  very  Bill  now  before  us,  assumes 
a  control  of  the  Territory  clearly  inconsistent  with 
those  principles  of  sovereignty,  which  are  said  to  be 
violated  by  a  Congressional  prohibition  of  Slavery. 

Here  are  provisions,  determining  the  main  features 
in  the  Government  —  the  distribution  of  powers  in  the 
Executive,  the  Legislative  and  Judicial  departments, 
and  the  manner  in  which  they  shall  be  respectively 
constituted ;  securing  to  the  President,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  Senate,  the  appointment  of  the  Governor, 
the  Secretary  and  the  Judges,  and  to  the  people  only 
the  election  of  the  Legislature  ;  and  even  ordaining 
the  qualifications  of  voters,  the  salaries  of  the  public 
officers,  and  the  daily  compensation  of  the  members  of 
the  Legislature.  Surely,  if  Congress  may  establish 
these  provisions,  without  any  interference  with  the 
rights  of  territorial  sovereignty,  it  is  absurd  to  say  that 
it  may  not  also  prohibit  Slavery. 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  299 

But  in  the  very  Bill  there  is  an  express  prohibition 
on  the  Territory,  borrowed  from  the  Ordinance  of 
1787,  and  repeated  in  every  Act  organizing  a  Territory, 
or  even  a  new  State,  down  to  the  present  time,  wherein 
it  is  expressly  declared,  that  "  no  tax  shall  be  imposed 
upon  the  property  of  the  United  States."  Now,  here 
is  a  clear  and  unquestionable  restraint  upon  the  sover- 
eignty of  Territories  and  States.  The  public  lands  of 
the  United  States,  situated  within  an  organized  Terri- 
tory or  State,  cannot  be  regarded  as  the  instruments 
and  means  necessary  and  proper  to  execute  the  sover- 
eign powers  of  the  nation,  like  fortifications,  arsenals 
and  navy  yards.  They  are  strictly  in  the  nature  of 
private  property  of  the  nation,  and  as  such,  unless 
exempted  by  the  foregoing  prohibition,  would  clearly 
be  within  the  field  of  local  taxation,  liable,  like  the 
lands  of  other  proprietors,  to  all  customary  burdens 
and  incidents.  Mr.  Justice  Woodbury  has  declared, 
in  a  well-considered  judgment,  that  "  where  the  United 
States  own  land  situated  within  the  limits  of  particular 
States,  and  over  which  they  have  no  cession  of  juris- 
diction, for  objects  either  special  or  general,  little 
doubt  exists  that  the  rights  and  remedies  in  relation 
to  it  are  usually  the  same  as  apply  to  other  landholders 
within  the  States." — (United  States  v.  Ames,  1  Wood- 
bury  &  Minot,  p.  76).  I  assume,  then,  that  without 
this  prohibition  these  lands  would  be  liable  to  taxation. 
Does  any  one  question  this  ?  Nobody.  The  conclu- 
sion then  follows,  that  by  this  prohibition  you  propose 
to  deprive  the  present  Territory,  as  you  have  deprived 
other  Territories  —  ay,  and  States  —  of  an  essential 
portion  of  its  sovereignty. 

And  these,  sir,  are  not  vain  words.     The  Supreme 


THE    LANDMARK    OF    FBEEDOM  ; 

Court  of  the  United  States  have  given  great  promi- 
nence to  the  sovereign  right  of  taxation  in  the  States. 
In  the  case  of  Providence  Bank  v.  Pittman,  4  Peters, 
514,  they  declare  — 

"  That  the  taxing  power  is  of  vital  importance  ;  that  it  is  es- 
sential to  the  existence  of  Government ;  that  the  relinquishment 
of  such  power  is  never  to  be  assumed." 

And  again,  in  the  case  of  Dobbins  v.  Commissioners 
of  Erie  County,  16  Peters,  447,  they  say  — 

"  Taxation  is  a  sacred  right,  essential  to  the  existence  of  Gov- 
ernment —  an  incident  of  sovereignty.  The  right  of  legislation 
is  co-extensive  with  the  incident  to  attach  it  upon  all  persons 
and  property  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State." 

Now,  I  call  upon  Senators  to  remark,  that  this  sacred 
right,  said  to  be  essential  to  the  very  existence  of 
Government,  is  abridged  in  the  Bill  before  us. 

For  myself,  I  do  not  doubt  the  power  of  Congress 
to  fasten  this  restriction  upon  the  Territory,  and  after- 
wards upon  the  State,  as  has  been  always  done ;  but 
I  am  at  a  loss  to  see  on  what  grounds  this  restric- 
tion can  be  placed,  which  will  not  also  support  the 
Prohibition  of  Slavery.  The  former  is  an  unquestion- 
able infringement  of  sovereignty,  as  declared  by  our 
Supreme  Court,  far  more  than  can  be  asserted  of  the 
latter. 

I  am  unwilling  to  admit,  sir,  that  the  Prohibition 
of  Slavery  in  the  Territories  is  in  any  just  sense  an 
infringement  of  the  local  sovereignty.  Slavery  is  an 
infraction  of  the  immutable  law  of  nature,  and  as  such, 
cannot  be  considered  a  natural  incident  to  any  sover- 
eignty, especially  in  a  country  which  has  solemnly 
declared,  in  its  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  in- 


FEEEDOM    NATIONAL.  301 

alienable  right  of  all  men  to  life,  liberty  and  the  pur- 
suit of  happiness.  In  an  age  of  civilization  and  in  a 
land  of  rights,  Slavery  may  still  he  tolerated  in  fact ; 
but  its  prohibition,  within  a  municipal  jurisdiction,  by 
the  Government  thereof — as  by  one  of  the  States  of 
the  Union  —  cannot  be  considered  an  infraction  of 
natural  rights  ;  nor  can  its  prohibition  by  Congress  in 
the  Territories  be  regarded  as  an  infringement  of  the 
-local  sovereignty,  founded,  as  it  must  be,  on  natural 
rights. 

But  another  argument  is  pressed,  most  fallacious  in 
its  character.  It  is  asserted  that,  inasmuch  as  the 
Territories  were  acquired  by  the  common  treasure,  they 
are  the  common  property  of  the  whole  Union ;  and, 
therefore,  no  citizen  can  be  prevented  from  moving 
into  them  with  his  slaves,  without  an  infringement  of 
the  equal  rights  and  privileges  which  belong  to  him  as 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  But,  it  is  admitted  that 
the  people  of  this  very  Territory,  when  organized  as  a 
State,  may  exclude  slaves,  and  in  this  way  abridge  an 
asserted  right  founded  on  the  common  property  in  the 
Territory.  Now,  if  this  can  be  done  by  the  few  thou- 
sand settlers  who  constitute  the  State  Government, 
the  whole  argument  founded  on  the  acquisition  of  the 
Territories,  by  a  common  treasure,  seems  futile  and 
evanescent. 

But  this  argument  proceeds  on  an  assumption  which 
cannot  stand.  It  assumes  that  Slavery  is  a  National 
Institution,  and  that  property  in  slaves  is  recognized  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Nothing  can 
be  more  false.  By  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  and  also  by  the  principles 
of  the  common  law,  Slavery  is  a  local  municipal  insti- 
26 


302  THE    LANDMARK    OF    FREEDOM; 

tution,  which  derives  its  support  exclusively  from  local 
municipal  laws,  and  beyond  the  sphere  of  these  laws  it 
ceases  to  exist,  except  so  far  as  it  may  be  preserved  by 
the  clause  for  the  rendition  of  fugitives  from  service. 
Madison  thought  it  wrong  to  admit  into  the  Constitu- 
;ion  the  idea  that  there  can  be  property  in  man  ;  and  I 
rejoice  to  believe  that  no  such  idea  can  be  found  there. 
The  Constitution  regards  slaves  always  as  "  persons," 
with  the  rights  of  "  persons,"  never  as  property. 
When  it  is  said,  therefore,  that  every  citizen  may  enter 
the  national  domain  with  his  property,  it  does  not  fol- 
low, by  any  rule  of  logic  or  of  law,  that  he  may  carry  his 
slaves.  On  the  contrary,  he  can  only  carry  that  prop- 
erty which  is  admitted  to  be  such  by  the  universal  law 
of  nature,  written  by  God's  own  finger  on,  the  heart  of 
man. 

Again :  The  relation  of  master  and  slave  is  some- 
times classed  with  the  domestic  relations.  Now,  while 
it  is  unquestionably  among  the  powers  of  any  State, 
within  its  own  jurisdiction,  to  change  the  existing 
relation  of  husband  and  wife,  and  to  establish  polyg- 
amy, I  presume  no  person  would  contend  that  a  polyg- 
amous husband,  resident  in  one  of  the  States,  would 
be  entitled  to  enter  the  National  Territory  with  his 
harem  —  his  property,  if  you  please  —  and  there  claim 
immunity.  Clearly,  when  he  passes  the  bounds  of  that 
local  jurisdiction,  which  sanctions  polygamy,  the  pecu- 
liar domestic  relation  would  cease;  and  it  is  precisely 
the  same  with  Slavery. 

Sir,  I  dismiss  these  considerations.  The  Prohibition 
of  Slavery  in  the  Territory  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska 
stands  on  foundations  of  adamant,  upheld  by  the  early 
policy  of  the  Fathers,  by  constant  precedent,  and  time- 


-. 

FB.EEDOM    NATIONAL.  303 

$ '  *•  • .-  •  i      -' " 

honored  compact.  It  is  now  in  your  power  to  overturn 
it ;  you  may  remove  the  sacred  landmark,  and  open  the 
whole  vast  domain  to  Slavery.  To  you  is  committed 
this  high  prerogative.  Our  fathers,  on  the  eve  of  the 
Revolution,  set  forth  in  hurning  words,  among  their 
grievances,  that  George  III.  "  in  order  to  keep  open  a 
market  where  men  should  be  bought  and  sold,  had 
prostituted  his  negative  for  suppressing  every  legis- 
lative attempt  to  prohibit  or  restrain  this  execrable 
commerce."  Sir,  like  the  English  monarch,  you  may 
now  prostitute  your  power  to  this  same  purpose.  But 
you  cannot  escape  the  judgment  of  the  world,  nor  the 
doom  of  history. 

It  will  be  in  vain,  that,  while  doing  this  thing,  you 
plead,  in  apology,  the  principle  of  self-government, 
which  you  profess  to  recognize  in  the  Territories.  Sir, 
this  very  principle,  when  truly  administered,  secures 
equal  rights  to  all,  without  distinction  of  color  or  race, 
and  makes  Slavery  impossible.  By  no  rule  of  justice, 
and  by  no  subtlety  of  political  metaphysics-,  can  the 
right  to  hold  a  fellow-man  in  bondage  be  regarded  as 
essential  to  self-government.  The  inconsistency  is  too 
flagrant.  It  is  apparent  on  the  bare  statement.  It  is 
like  saying  two  and  two  make  three.  In  the  name  of 
Liberty  you  open  the  door  to  Slavery.  With  profes- 
sions of  Equal  Rights  on  the  lips,  you  trample  on  the 
rights  of  Human  Nature.  With  a  kiss  upon  the  brow 
of  that  fair  Territory,  you  betray  it  to  wretchedness 
and  shame.  Well  did  the  patriot  soul  exclaim,  in 
bitter  words,  wrung  out  by  bitter  experience  :  "  Oh 
Liberty  !  what  crimes  are  done  in  thy  name !  " 

In  vain,  sir,  you  will  plead,  that  this  measure  pro- 
ceeds from  the  North,  as  has  been  suggested  by  the 


304  THE    LANDMAKK    OF    FREEDOM  J 

Senator  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Dixon].  Even  if  this 
were  true,  it  would  be  no  apology.  But,  precipitated 
as  this  Bill  has  been  upon  the  Senate,  at  a  moment  of 
general  calm,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  controlling 
exigency,  and  then  hurried  to  a  vote  in  advance  of 
the  public  voice,  as  if  fearful  of  arrest,  it  cannot  justly 
be  called  the  offspring  of  any  popular  sentiment.  In 
this  respect  it  differs  widely  from  the  Missouri  Prohibi- 
tion, which,  after  solemn  debate,  extending  through 
two  sessions  of  Congress,  and  ample  discussion  before 
the  people,  was  adopted.  Certainly  there  is,  as  yet, 
no  evidence  that  this  attempt,  though  espoused  by 
Northern  politicians,  proceeds  from  that  Northern  sen- 
timent which  throbs  and  glows,  strong  and  fresh,  in  the 
schools,  the  churches  and  homes  of  the  people.  Populi 
omnes  AD  AQUILONEM  positi  Libertatem  quandam 
spirant.  And  could  the  abomination  which  you  seek 
to  perpetrate  be  now  submitted  to  the  awakened  mil- 
lions whose  souls  have  been  truly  ripened  under  North- 
ern skies,  it  would  be  flouted  at  once  with  indignant 
and  undying  scorn. 

But  the  race  of  men,  "white  slaves  of  the  North," 
described  and  despised  by  a  Southern  statesman,  is  not 
yet  extinct  there,  sir.  It  is  one  of  the  melancholy 
tokens  of  the  power  of  Slavery,  under  our  political 
system,  and  especially  through  the  operations  of  the 
National  Government,  that  it  loosens  and  destroys  the 
character  of  Northern  men,  exerting  its  subtle  influence 
even  at  a  distance  —  like  the  black  magnetic  moun- 
tain in  the  Arabian  story,  under  whose  irresistible 
attraction  the  iron  bolts,  which  held  together  the 
strong  timbers  of  a  stately  ship,  securely  floating  on 
the  distant  wave,  were  drawn  out,  till  the  whole  fell 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  305 

*t    •- 

apart,  and  became  a  disjointed  wreck.  Alas !  too 
often  those  principles,  which  give  consistency,  indi- 
viduality and  form,  to  the  Northern  character,  which 
render  it  .staunch,  strong  and  seaworthy,  which  bind  it 
together  as  with  iron,  are  sucked  out,  one  by  one,  like 
the  bolts  of  the  ill-fated  vessel,  and  from  the  miserable, 
loosened  fragments  is  formed  that  human  anomaly  — 
a  Northern  man  with  Southern  principles.  Sir — No 
such  man  can  speak  for  the  North. 

[Here  there  was  an  interruption  of  prolonged  ap- 
plause in  the  galleries.] 

The  PRESIDENT  (Mr.  Stuart  in  the  chair).  The 
Chair  will  be  obliged  to  direct  the  galleries  to  be 
cleared,  if  order  is  not  preserved.  No  applause  will  be 
allowed. 

SEVERAL  VOICES.     Let  them  be  cleared  now. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Mr.  President,  I  advance  now  to 
considerations  of  a  more  general  character,  to  which  I 
ask  your  best  attention.  Sir,  this  Bill  is  proposed  as  a 
measure  of  peace.  In  this  way  you  vainly  think  to 
withdraw  the  subject  of  Slavery  from  National  Politics. 
This  is  a  mistake.  Peace  depends  on  mutual  confi- 
dence. It  can  never  rest  secure  on  broken  faith  and 
injustice.  And,  sir  permit  me  to  say,  frankly,  sin- 
cerely and  earnestly,  that  the  subject  of  Slavery  can 
never  be  withdrawn  from  the  National  Politics,  until 
we  return  once  more  to  the  original  policy  of  our 
fathers,  at  the  first  organization  of  the  Government, 
under  Washington,  when  the  National  ensign  nowhere 
on  the  National  Territory  covered  a  single  slave. 

Slavery,  which  our  fathers  branded  as  an  "  evil,"  a 
"  curse,"  an  "  enormity,"  a  "  nefarious  institution,"  is 
26* 


306  THE    I/AKDMABK    OF    FXEEDOM!  ; 

condemned  at  the  North  by  the  strongest  convictions 
of  the  reason  and  the  best  sentiments  of  the  heart.  It 
is  the  only  subject  within  the  field  of  National  Politics 
which  excites  any  real  interest.  The  old  matters  which 
have  divided  the  minds  of  men  have  lost  their  import- 
ance. One  by  one  they  have  disappeared,  leaving  the 
ground  to  be  occupied  by  a  question  grander  far.  The 
Bank,  Sub- Treasury,  the  Distribution  of  the  Public 
Lands,  are  each  and  all  obselete  issues.  Even  the 
Tariff  is  not  a  question  on  which  opposite  political 
parties  are  united  in  taking  opposite  sides.  And  now, 
instead  of  these  superseded  questions,  which  were 
filled  for  the  most  part  with  the  odor  of  the  dollar,  the 
country  is  directly  summoned  to  consider  face  to  face 
a  cause,  which  is  connected  with  all  that  is  divine  in 
religion,  with  all  that  is  pure  and  noble  in  morals,  with 
all  that  is  truly  practical  and  constitutional  in  politics. 
Unlike  the  other  questions,  it  is  not  temporary  or  local 
in  its  character.  It  belongs  to  all  times  and  to  all 
countries.  Though  long  kept  in  check,  it  now,  by 
your  introduction,  confronts  the  people,  demanding  to 
be  heard.  To  every  man  in  the  land  it  says,  with 
clear,  penetrating  voice,  "  Are  you  for  Freedom,  or  are 
you  for  Slavery  ?  "  And  every  man  in  the  land  must 
answer  this  question  when  he  votes. 

Pass  this  Bill,  and  it  will  be  in  vain  that  you  say, 
the  Slavery  Question  is  settled.  Sir,  nothing  can  be 
settled  which  is  not  right.  Nothing  can  be  settled 
which  is  adverse  to  Freedom.  God,  nature  and  all 
the  holy  sentiments  of  the  heart,  repudiate  any  such 
false  seeming  settlement. 

Now,  sir,  mark  the  clear  line  of  our  duty.  And  here 
let  me  speak  for  those  with  whom,  in  minority  and 


FEEEDOM    NATIONAL.  307 

defeat,  I  am  proud  to  be  associated,  —  the  Independent 
Democrats,  —  who  espouse  that  Democracy  which  is 
transfigured  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and 
the  injunctions  of  Christianity.  The  testimony  which 
we  bear  against  Slavery,  as  against  all  other  wrong,  is 
in  different  ways,  according  to  our  position.  The 
Slavery,  which  exists  under  other  Governments  —  as 
in  Russia  or  Turkey  —  or  in  other  States  of  the  Union, 
as  in  Virginia  and  Carolina,  we  can  oppose  only 
through  the  influence  of  literature,  morals  and  religion, 
without  in  any  way  invoking  the  Political  Power. 
Nor  is  it  proposed  to  act  otherwise.  But  Slavery, 
where  we  are  parties  to  it  —  where  we  are  responsible 
for  it  —  everywhere  within  our  jurisdiction  —  must  be 
opposed,  not  only  by  all  the  influence  of  literature, 
morals  and  religion,  but  directly  by  every  instrument 
of  Political  Power.  In  the  States  it  is  sustained  by 
local  laws,  and  although  we  may  be  compelled  to  share 
the  shame,  which  its  presence  inflicts  upon  the  fair 
fame  of  the  country,  yet  it  receives  no  direct  sanction 
at  our  hands.  "We  are  not  responsible  for  it.  The 
wrong  is  not  at  our  own  particular  doors.  It  is  not 
within  our  jurisdiction.  But  Slavery  everywhere 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  —  every- 
where within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  National 
Government  —  everywhere  under  the  National  Flag, 
is  at  our  own  particular  doors,  within  the  sphere  of 
our  own  personal  responsibility,  and  exists  there  in 
defiance  of  the  original  policy  of  our  Fathers,  and  of 
the  true  principles  of  the  Constitution. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  say,  as  is  often  charged,  that  we 
seek  to  interfere,  through  Congress,  with  Slavery  in 
the  States,  or  in  any  way  to  direct  the  legislation  of 


308  THE    LA.NDMAKK    OF    FREEDOM  ; 

Congress  upon  subjects  not  within  its  jurisdiction. 
Our  political  aims,  as  well  as  our  political  duties,  are 
co-extensive  with  our  political  responsibilities.  And 
since  we  at  the  North  are  responsible  for  Slavery 
wherever  it  exists  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress, 
it  is  unpardonable  in  us  not  to  exert  every  power  we 
possess  to  enlist  Congress  against  it. 

Such  is  our  cause.  To  men  of  all  parties  and 
opinions,  who  wish  well  to  the  Republic,  and  would 
preserve  its  good  name,  it  appeals.  Alike  to  the  Con- 
servative and  the  Reformer,  it  appeals  ;  for  it  stands 
on  the  truest  Conservatism  and  the  truest  Reform.  In 
seeking  the  reform  of  existing  evils,  we  seek  also  the 
conservation  of  the  principles  of  our  fathers.  The 
cause  is  not  sectional.  Oh,  no  !  sir,  it  is  not  sectional ; 
for  it  simply  aims  to  establish  under  the  National  Gov- 
ernment those  great  principles  of  Justice  and  Humanity, 
which  are  broad  and  universal  as  man.  As  well  might 
it  be  said  that  Jefferson,  Franklin  and  Washington, 
were  sectional.  It  is  not  aggressive  ;  for  it  does  not 
seek  in  any  way  to  interfere,  through  Congress,  with 
Slavery  in  the  States.  It  is  not  contrary  to  the  Con- 
stitution ;  for  it  recognizes  this  paramount  law,  and  in 
the  administration  of  the  Government  invokes  the 
spirit  of  its  founders.  Sir,  it  is  not  hostile  to  the 
quiet  of  the  country ;  for  it  proposes  the  only  course 
by  which  agitation  can  be  allayed,  and  quiet  be  per- 
manently established. 

It  is  not  uncommon  to  hear  persons  declare  that 
they  are  against  Slavery,  and  are  willing  to  unite  in 
any  practical  efforts  to  make  this  opposition  felt. 
At  the  same  time,  they  pharisaically  visit  with  con- 
demnation, with  reproach  or  contempt,  the  earnest 


FKEEDOM    NATIONAL.  309 

souls  who  for  years  have  striven  in  this  struggle.  To 
such  I  would  say  —  could  I  reach  them  now  with  my 
voice  —  if  you  axe  sincere  in  what  you  declare ;  if 
your  words  are  not  merely  lip-service ;  if  in  your  hearts 
you  are  entirely  willing  to  join  in  any  practical  efforts 
against  Slavery,  then  by  your  lives,  by  your  conversa- 
tion, by  your  influence,  by  your  votes  —  disregarding 
"  the  ancient  forms  of  party  strife  "  —  seek  to  carry 
the  principles  of  Freedom  into  the  National  Govern- 
ment, wherever  its  jurisdiction  is  acknowledged  and 
its  power  can  be  felt.  Thus,  without  any  interference 
with  the  States,  which  are  beyond  this  jurisdiction, 
may  you  help  to  erase  the  blot  of  Slavery  from  our 
National  brow. 

Do  this,  and  you  will  most  truly  promote  the  har- 
mony which  you  so  much  desire.  You  will  establish 
tranquillity  throughout  the  country.  Then  at  last,  sir, 
the  Slavery  Question  will  be  settled.  Banished  from 
its  usurped  foothold  under  the  National  Government, 
Slavery  will  no  longer  enter,  with  distracting  force, 
into  the  National  Politics  —  making  and  unmaking 
laws,  making  and  unmaking  Presidents.  Confined  to 
the  States,  where  it  was  left  by  the  Constitution,  it 
will  take  its  place  as  a  local  institution  —  if,  alas ! 
continue  it  must !  —  for  which  we  are  in  no  sense 
responsible,  and  against  which  we  cannot  exert  any 
political  power.  We  shall  be  relieved  from  our  pres- 
ent painful  and  irritating  connection  with  it.  The 
existing  antagonism  between  the  North  and  the  South 
will  be  softened ;  crimination  and  recrimination  will 
cease  ;  the  wishes  of  the  Fathers  will  be  fulfilled,  and 
this  Great  Evil  will  be  left  to  the  kindly  influences  of 


310       THE  LANDMAEK  OF  FREEDOM  ; 

morals  and  religion,  and  the  prevailing  laws  of  social 
economy. 

I  am  not  blind  to  the  adverse  signs.  But  this  I  see 
clearly.  Amidst  all  seeming  discouragements,  the 
great  omens  are  with  us.  Art,  literature,  poetry, 
religion  —  everything  which  elevates  man  —  all  are 
on  our  side.  The  plough,  the  steam-engine,  the  rail- 
road, the  telegraph,  the  book,  every  human  improve- 
ment, every  generous  word  anywhere,  every  true 
pulsation  of  every  heart  which  is  not  a  mere  muscle, 
and  nothing  else,  gives  new  encouragement  to  the 
warfare  with  Slavery.  The  discussion  will  proceed. 
The  devices  of  party  can  no  longer  stave  it  off.  The 
subterfuges  of  the  politician  cannot  escape  it.  The 
tricks  of  the  office-seeker  cannot  dodge  it.  Wherever 
an  election  occurs,  there  this  question  will  arise. 
Wherever  men  come  together  to  speak  of  public  affairs, 
there  again  will  it  be.  No  political  Joshua  now,  with 
miraculous  power,  can  stop  the  sun  in  his  course 
through  the  heavens.  It  is  even  now  rejoicing,  like 
a  strong  man,  to  run  its  race,  and  will  yet  send  its 
beams  into  the  most  distant  plantations  —  ay,  sir,  and 
melt  the  chains  of  every  slave. 

But  this  movement  —  or  agitation,  as  it  is  reproach- 
fully called  —  is  boldly  pronounced  injurious  to  the 
very  object  desired.  Now,  without  entering  into 
details  which  neither  time  nor  the  occasion  justifies, 
let  me  say  that  this  objection  belongs  to  those  com- 
monplaces, which  have  been  arrayed  against  every 
beneficent  movement  in  the  world's  history  —  against 
even  knowledge  itself  —  against  the  abolition  of  the 
slave-trade.  Perhaps  it  was  not  unnatural  for  the 
Senator  from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  Badger]  to  press  it, 


FREEDOM    NATIONAL.  311 

even  as  vehemently  as  he  did ;  but  it  sounded  less 
natural  when  it  came,  though  in  more  moderate 
phrase,  from  my  distinguished  friend  and  colleague 
from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Everett].  The  past  furnishes 
a  controlling  example  by  which  its  true  character  may 
be  determined.  Do  not  forget,  sir,  that  the  efforts  of 
William  Wilberforce  encountered  this  precise  objec- 
tion, and  that  the  condition  of  the  kidnapped  slave 
was  then  vindicated,  in  language  not  unlike  that  of 
the  Senator  from  North  Carolina,  by  no  less  a  person 
than  the  Duke  of  Clarence,  of  the  royal  family  of 
Great  Britain.  In  what  was  called  his  maiden  speech, 
on  3d  May,  1792,  and  preserved  in  the  Parliamentary 
Debates,  he  said  :  "  The  negroes  were  not  treated  in 
the  manner  which  had  so  much  agitated  the  public 
mind.  He  had  .been  an  attentive  observer  of  their  state, 
and  had  no  doubt  that  he  could  bring  forward  proofs 
to  convince  their  lordships  that  their  state  was  far 
from  being  miserable  ;  on  the  contrary,  that  when  the 
various  ranks  of  society  were  considered,  they  were 
comparatively  in  a  state  of  humble  happiness."  And 
only  the  next  year  this  same  royal  prince,  in  debate  in 
the  House  of  Lords,  asserted  that  the  promoters  of  the 
abolition  of  the  slave-trade  were  "  either  fanatics  or 
hypocrites,"  and  in  one  of  these  classes  he  ranked 
Wilberforce.  Mark  now  the  end.  After  years  of 
weary  effort,  the  slave-trade  was  finally  abolished  ; 
and  at  last,  in  1833,  the  early  vindicator  of  this  enor- 
mity, the  maligner  of  a  name  hallowed  among  men, 
was  brought  to  give  his  royal  assent,  as  William  IV., 
King  of  Great  Britain,  to  the  immortal  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment, greater  far  than  any  victory  of  war,  by  which 
slavery  was  abolished  throughout  the  British  domin- 


312  THE    LANDMARK    OF    FREEDOM  ; 

ions.  Sir,  time  and  the  universal  conscience  have  vindi- 
cated the  labors  of  Wilberforce.  The  movement  against 
American  Slavery,  auspicated  by  the  august  names  of 
Washington,  Franklin  and  Jefferson,  can  calmly  await 
a  similar  judgment. 

But  it  is  suggested  that,  in  this  movement,  there  is 
danger  to  the  Union.  In  this  solicitude  I  cannot 
share.  As  a  lover  of  concord  and  a  jealous  partisan 
of  all  things  that  make  for  peace,  I  am  always  glad  to 
express  my  attachment  to  the  Union  ;  but  I  believe 
that  this  bond  will  be  most  truly  preserved  and  most 
beneficently  extended  (for  I  shrink  from  no  expansion 
where  Freedom  leads  the  way)  by  firmly  upholding 
those  principles  of  Liberty  and  Justice  which  were 
made  its  early  corner-stones.  The  true  danger  to  this 
Union  proceeds,  not  from  any  abandonment  of  the 
"  peculiar  institution "  of  the  South,  but  from  the 
abandonment  of  the  spirit  in  which  the  Union  was 
formed  ;  not  from  any  warfare,  within  the  limits  of 
the  Constitution,  upon  Slavery ;  but  from  warfare, 
like  that  waged  by  this  very  Bill,  upon  Freedom. 
The  Union  is  most  precious  ;  but  more  precious  far 
are  that  "  general  welfare,"  "  domestic  tranquillity," 
and  those  "  blessings  of  Liberty,"  which  it  was  estab- 
lished to  secure  ;  all  which  are  now  wantonly  endan- 
gered. Not  that  I  love  the  Union  less,  but  Freedom 
more,  do  I  now,  in  pleading  this  great  cause,  insist 
that  Freedom,  at  all  hazards,  shall  be  preserved. 

One  word  more,  and  I  have  done.  The  great 
master,  Shakespeare,  who,  with  all-seeing  mortal  eye, 
observed  mankind,  and  with  immortal  pen  depicted 
the  manners  as  they  rise,  has  presented  a  scene  which 
may  be  read  with  advantage  by  all  who  would  plunge 


FBEEDOM    NATIONAL.  313 

the  South  into  tempestuous  quarrel  with  the  North. 
I  refer  to  the  well-known  dialogue  between  Brutus 
and  Cassius.  Reading  this  remarkable  passage,  it  is 
difficult  not  to  see  in  Brutus  our  own  North,  and  in 
Cassius  the  South : 

Cas.   Urge  me  no  more,  I  shall  forget  myself  ; 
Have  a  mind  upon  your  health,  tempt  me  no  further. 

Bru.  Hear  me,  for  I  will  speak. 

Must  I  give  way  and  room  to  your  rash  choler  ? 

Cas.    0  ye  gods  !  ye  gods  !  Must  I  endure  all  this  ? 

Bru.  All  this  ?  ay,  more  :  Fret,  till  your  proud  heart  break  : 
Go,  show  your  slaves  how  choleric  you  are, 
JLnd.  make  your  bondmen  tremble.     Must  I  budge  ? 
Must  I  observe  you  ?     Must  I  stand  and  crouch 
Under  your  testy  humor  ? 

Cas.   Do  not  presume  too  much  upon  my  love, 
I  may  do  that  I  shall  be  sorry  for. 

Bru.    You  have  done  that  you  should  be  sorry  for. 
There  is  no  terror,  Cassius,  in  your  threats  ; 
For  I  am  arm'd  so  strong  in  honesty, 
That  they  pass  by  me,  as  the  idle  wind, 
Which  I  respect  not. 

Cas.   A  friend  should  bear  his  friend's  infirmities, 
But  Brutus  makes  mine  greater  than  they  are. 

Bru.  I  do  not,  TILL  YOU  PRACTISE  THEM  ON  ME. 

Cas.   You  love  me  not. 

Bru.  I  do  not  like  your  faults. 

Julius  Ccesar,  Act  iv.  Scene  3. 

And  the  colloquy  proceeding,  each  finally  comes  to 
understand  the  other,  appreciates  his  character  and 
attitude,  and  the  impetuous  gallant  Cassius  exclaims, 
"  Give  me  your  hand ; "  to  which  Brutus  replies, 
"  And  my  heart  too."  Afterwards,  with  hand  and 
heart  united,  on  the  field  of  Philippi  they  together 
upheld  the  liberties  of  Rome. 

The  North  and  the  South,  sir,  as  I  fondly  trust, 
27 


314  THE    LANDMARK    OF    FREEDOM,    ETC. 

amidst  all  differences,  will  ever  have  a  hand  and  heart 
for  each  other  ;  and,  believing  in  the  sure  prevalence 
of  Almighty  Truth,  I  confidently  look  forward  to  the 
good  time,  when  both  will  unite,  according  to  the  senti- 
ments of  the  Fathers  and  the  true  spirit  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, in  declaring  Freedom  and  not  Slavery  NATIONAL, 
to  the  end  that  the  Flag  of  the  Republic,  wherever  it 
floats,  on  sea  or  land,  within  the  National  jurisdiction, 
may  not  cover  a  single  slave.  Then  will  be  achieved 
that  Union  contemplated  at  the  beginning,  against 
which  the  storms  of  faction  and  the  assaults  of  foreign 
power  shall  beat  in  vain,  as  upon  the  Rock  of  Ages ; 
and  LIBERTY,  seeking  a  firm  foothold,  WILL  HAVE  AT 

LAST  WHEREON  TO  STAND  AND  MOVE  THE  WORLD. 


FINAL  PROTEST  FOR  HIMSELF  AND  THE  CLERGY 

OF  NEW  ENGLAND  AGAINST  SLAVERY  IN 

NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS. 

SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  ON  THE  NIGHT 
OF  THE  FINAL  PASSAGE  OF  THE  NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS 
BILL,  25TH  MAY,  1854. 


The  original  debate  in  the  Senate,  on  the  Nebraska  and  Kansas 
Bill,  in  which  Mr.  Sumner  took  part,  was  closed  by  the  passage 
of  that  Bill  —  after  a  protracted  session  throughout  the  night  — 
on  the  morning  of  Saturday,  4th  March,  1854,  by  a  vote  of.thirty- 
seven  yeas  to  fourteen  nays.  The  Bill  was  then  sent  to  the 
House  of  Representatives  for  action  there.  It  was  there  taken  up 
and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  ;  but,  owing  to  the 
mass  of  prior  business,  it  became  impossible  to  reach  it.  Under 
these  circumstances  a  fresh  Bill,  identical  with  that  which  had 
passed  the  Senate,  was  introduced  and  passed  the  House.  This, 
of  course,  required  the  action  of  the  Senate.  On  the  23d  May,  a 
message  from  the  House  announced  its  passage  and  asked  the 
concurrence  of  the  Senate.  It  was  at  once  read  a  first  time  ;  but, 
on  the  objection  of  Mr.  Sumner,  its  second  reading  was  stopped 
on  that  day.  On  the  next  day,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Douglas,  all 
prior  orders  were  postponed  for  the  purpose  of  considering  it. 
The  debate  upon  it  continued  during  that  day  and  the  next. 
Late  in  the  night  of  the  last  day,  after  the  Bill  had  been  reported 
to  the  Senate,  and  the  question  had  been  put  by  the  Chair, 
"  Shall  the  Bill  be  engrossed  and  read  a  third  time  ?  "  Mr. 
SUMNER  took  the  floor  and  said  : 

Mr.  President :  It  is  now  midnight.  At  this  late 
hour  of  a  session  drawn  out  to  an  unaccustomed  length, 

[315] 


316          FINAL    PROTEST    AGAINST    SLAVERY    IN 

I  shall  not  fatigue  the  Senate  by  argument.  There  is 
a  time  for  all  things,  ,and  the  time  for  this  has  passed. 
The  determination  of  the  majority  is  fixed ;  but  it  is 
not  more  fixed  than  mine.  The  Bill  which  they  sustain, 
I  oppose.  On  a  former  occasion  I  met  it  by  argument, 
which,  though  often  attacked  in  debate,  still  stands 
unanswered  and  unanswerable.  At  present,  I  am 
admonished  that  I  must  be  content  with  a  few  words 
of  earnest  protest  against  the  consummation  of  a  great 
wrong.  Duty  to  myself,  and  also  to  the  honored 
Commonwealth,  of  which  I  find  myself  the  sole  repre- 
sentative in  this  immediate  exigency,  will  not  allo'w 
me  to  do  less. 

But  I  have  a  special  duty,  which  I  would  not  omit. 
Here  on  my  desk  are  remonstrances  against  the  pas- 
sage of  this  Bill,  some  of  which  have  been  placed  in 
my  hands  since  the  commencement  of  the  debate  to-day, 
and  I  desire  that  these  voices,  direct  from  the  people, 
should  be  heard.  With  the  permission  of  the  Senate, 
I  will  offer  them  now. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER  (Mr.  Stuart  in  the  chair). 
The  remonstrances  can  be  received  by  unanimous 
consent. 

SEVERAL  VOICES.     Let"  them  be  received. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Chair  hears  no  ob- 
jection. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Taking  advantage  of  this  permission, 
I  now  present  the  remonstrance  of  a  large  number  of 
citizens  of  New  York  against  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise. 

I  also  present  the  memorial  of  the  religious  Society 
of  Friends  in  Michigan,  against  the  passage  of  the 


NEBBASKA   AND    KANSAS.  317 

Nebraska  Bill,  or  any  other  Bill  annulling  the  Missouri 
Compromise  Act  of  1820. 

I  also  present  the  remonstrance  of  the  clergy  and 
laity  of  the  Baptist  denomination  in  Michigan  and 
Indiana,  against  the  wrong  and  bad  faith  contemplated 
in  the  Nebraska  Bill. 

But  this  is  not  all. 

I  hold  in  my  hand,  and  now  present  to  the  Senate, 
one  hundred  and  twenty-five  separate  remonstrances, 
from  clergymen  of  every  Protestant  denomination  in 
Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts, 
Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut,  constituting  the  six 
New  England  States.  These  remonstrances  are  identi- 
cal in  character  with  the  larger  one  presented  by  my 
distinguished  colleague  [Mr.  Everett]  —  whose  term 
of  service  here  ends  in  a  few  days,  by  voluntary  resig- 
nation, and  who  is  now  detained  at  home  by  illness  — 
and  were  originally  intended  as  a  part  of  it,  but  did 
not  arrive  in  season  to  be  annexed  to  that  interesting 
and  weighty  document.  They  are  independent  in 
form,  though  supplementary  in  their  nature  —  helping 
to  swell  the  protest  of  the  pulpits  of  New  England. 

With  pleasure  and  pride  I  now  do  this  service,  and, 
at  this  last  stage,  interpose  the  sanctity  of  the  pulpits 
of  New  England  to  arrest  an  alarming  outrage  ;  be- 
lieving that  the  remonstrants,  from  their  eminent 
character  and  influence,  as  representatives  of  the  intel- 
ligence and  conscience  of  the  country,  are  peculiarly 
entitled  to  be  heard  ;  and,  further,  believing  that  their 
remonstrances,  while  respectful  in  form,  embody  just 
conclusions,  both  of  opinion  and  fact.  Like  them, 
sir,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  protest  here  against  the  Bill 
yet  pending  before  the  Senate,  as  a  great  moral  wrong ; 
27* 


318          FINAL    PKOTEST    AGAINST    SLAVERY    IN 

as  a  breach,  of  public  faith ;  as  a  measure  full  of  danger 
to  the  peace,  and  even  existence  of  our  Union.  And, 
sir,  believing  in  God  as  I  profoundly  do,  I  cannot 
doubt  that  the  opening  of  an  immense  region  to  so 
great  an  enormity  as  Slavery  is  calculated  to  draw 
down  upon  our  country  His  righteous  judgments. 

"  In  the  name  of  Almighty  God,  and  in  His  pres- 
ence," these  remonstrants  protest  against  the  Ne- 
braska Bill.  In  this  solemn  language,  which  has  been 
strangely  pronounced  blasphemous  on  this  floor,  there 
is  obviously  no  assumption  of  ecclesiastical  power,  as 
has  been  perversely  charged,  but  simply  a  devout  ob- 
servance of  the  scriptural  injunction  :  "  Whatsoever 
ye  do,  in  word  or  deed,  do  all  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord."  Let  me  add,  also,  that  these  remonstrants,  in 
this  very  language,  have  followed  the  example  of  the 
Senate,  which,  at  our  present  session,  has  ratified  at 
least  one  important  treaty,  beginning  with  these  pre- 
cise words  :  "  In  the  name  of  Almighty  God."  Surely, 
if  the  Senate  may  thus  assume  to  speak,  the  clergy 
may  do  likewise,  without  imputation  of  blasphemy  or 
any  just  criticism,  at  least  in  this  body. 

But  I  am  unwilling,  particularly  at  this  time,  to  be 
betrayed  into  anything  that  shall  seem  like  a  defence 
of  the  clergy.  They  need  no  such  thing  at  my  hands. 
There  are  men  in  this  Senate,  justly  eminent  for  elo- 
quence, learning  and  ability  ;  but  there  is  no  man 
here  competent,  except  in  his  own  conceit,  to  sit  in 
judgment  on  the  clergy  of  New  England.  Honorable 
Senators,  who  have  been  so  swift  with  criticism  and 
sarcasm,  might  profit  by  their  example.  Perhaps  the 
Senator  from  South  Carolina  [Mr.  Butler],  who  is  not 
insensible  to  scholarship,  might  learn  from  them  some- 


NEBRASKA  AND    KANSAS.  319 

thing  of  its  graces.  Perhaps  the  Senator  from  Virginia 
[Mr.  Mason],  who  finds  no  sanction  under  the  Con- 
stitution for  any  remonstrance  from  clergymen,  might 
learn  from  them  something  of  the  privileges  of  an 
American  citizen.  And  perhaps  the  Senator  from 
Illinois  [Mr.  Douglas],  who  precipitated  this  odious 
measure  upon  the  country,  might  learn  from  them 
something  of  political  wisdom.  Sir,  from  the  first 
settlement  of  these  shores,  from  those  early  days  of 
struggle  and  privation  —  through  the  trials  of  the 
Revolution  —  the  clergy  have  been  associated,  not 
only  with  the  piety  and  the  learning,  but  with  the 
liberties  of  the  country.  For  a  long  time,  New  Eng- 
land was  governed  by  their  prayers  more  than  by  any 
acts  of  the  Legislature  ;  and  at  a  later  day,  their  voices 
aided  even  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  The 
clergy  of  our  time  may  speak,  then,  not  only  from  their 
own  virtues,  but  from  the  echoes  which  yet  live  in  the 
pulpits  of  their  fathers. 

For  myself,  I  desire  to  thank  them  for  their  gener- 
ous interposition.  They  have  already  done  much  good 
in  moving  the  country.  They  will  not  be  idle.  In 
the  days  of  the  Revolution,  John  Adams,  yearning  for 
Independence,  said :  "  Let  the  pulpits  thunder  against 
oppression  !  "  And  the  pulpits  thundered.  The  time 
has  come  for  them  to  thunder  again. 

There  are  lessons  taught  by  these  remonstrances, 
which,  at  this  moment,  should  not  pass  unheeded.  The 
Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Wade],  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Chamber,  has  openly  declared  that  the  Northern 
Whigs  can  never  again  combine  with  their  Southern 
brethren  in  support  of  Slavery.  This  is  a  good  augury. 
The  clergy  of  New  England,  some  of  whom,  forgetful 


320    FINAI,  PBOTEST  AGAINST  SLAVERY  IN 

of  the  traditions  of  other  days,  once  made  their  pulpits 
vocal  for  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  now,  by  the  voices 
of  learned  divines,  eminent  bishops,  accomplished 
professors  and  faithful  pastors,  uttered  in  solemn 
remonstrance,  at  last  unite  in  putting  a  permanent 
brand  upon  this  hateful  wrong.  Surely,  from  this 
time  forward,  they  can  never  more  render  it  any  sup- 
port. Thank  God  for  this !  Here  is  a  sign  full  of 
promise  for  Freedom. 

These  remonstrances  have  especial  significance,  when 
it  is  urged,  as  has  been  often  done  in  this  debate,  that 
the  proposition  still  pending  proceeds  from  the  North. 
Yes,  sir,  proceeds  from  the  North ;  for  that  is  its 
excuse  and  apology.  The  ostrich  is  reputed  to  hide 
its  head  in  the  sand,  and  then  vainly  imagine  its 
coward  body  beyond  the  reach  of  pursuers.  In  similar 
spirit,  honorable  Senators  seem  to  shelter  themselves 
behind  scanty  Northern  votes,  and  then  vainly  imagine 
that  they  are  protected  from  the  judgment  of  the 
country.  The  pulpits  of  New  England,  representing 
to  an  unprecedented  extent  the  popular  voice  there, 
now  proclaim  that  six  States  protest,  with  all  the 
fervor  of  religious  conviction,  against  your  outrage. 
To  this  extent,  at  least,  I  confidently  declare  it  does 
not  come  from  the  North. 

From  these  expressions,  and  other  tokens  which 
daily  greet  us,  it  is  evident  that  at  last  the  religious 
sentiment  of  the  country  is  touched,  and,  under  this 
sentiment,  I  rejoice  to  believe  that  the  whole  North 
will  be  quickened  with  the  true  life  of  Freedom.  Sir 
Philip  Sidney,  speaking  to  Queen  Elizabeth  of  the 
spirit  which  animated  every  man,  woman  and  child 
in  the  Netherlands,  against  the  Spanish  power,  ex- 


NEBBASKA  AND   KANSAS.  321 

claimed,  "  It  is  the  spirit  of  the  Lord,  and  is  irresisti- 
ble." A  kindred  spirit  now  animates  the  free  States 
against  the  Slave  Power,  breathing  everywhere  its 
precious  inspiration,  and  forbidding  repose  under  the 
attempted  usurpation.  I  repeat,  it  is  the  spirit  of  the 
Lord,  and  is  irresistible.  The  threat  of  disunion,  too 
often  sounded  in  our  ears,  will  be  disregarded  by  an 
aroused  and  indignant  people.  Ah,  sir,  Senators  vainly 
expect  peace.  Not  in  this  way  can  peace  come.  In 
passing  this  Bill,  as  is  now  threatened,  you  scatter, 
from  this  dark  midnight  hour,  no  seeds  of  harmony 
and  good- will,  but  broadcast  through  the  land,  dragon's 
teeth,  which  haply  may  not,  spring  up  in  direful  crops 
of  armed  men,  but  yet,  I  am  assured,  sir,  will  they 
fructify  in  civil  strife  and  feud. 

From  the  depths  of  my  soul,  as  a  loyal  citizen  and 
as  a  Senator,  I  plead,  remonstrate,  protest,  against  the 
passage  of  this  Bill.  I  struggle  against  it  as  against 
death ;  but,  as  in  death  itself,  corruption  puts  on  incor- 
ruption,  and  this  mortal  body  puts  on  immortality,  so 
from  the  sting  of  this  hour  I  find  assurances  of  that 
triumph  by  which  Freedom  will  be  restored  to  her 
immortal  birthright  in  the  Republic. 

Sir,  the  Bill  which  you  are  now  about  to  pass,  is  at 
once  the  worst  and  the  best  Bill  on  which  Congress 
ever  acted.  Yes,  sir,  WOBST  and  BEST  at  the  same  time. 

It  is  the  worst  Bill,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  present 
victory  of  Slavery.  In  a  Christian  land,  and  in  an 
age  of  civilization,  a  time-honored  statute  of  Freedom 
is  struck  down,  opening  the  way  to  all  the  countless 
woes  and  wrongs  of  human  bondage.  Among  the 
crimes  of  history,  another  is  about  to  be  recorded, 
which  no  tears  can  blot  out,  and  which,  in  better  days, 


322    FINAL  PEOXEST  AGAINST  SLAVERY  IN 

will  be  read  with  universal  shame.  Do  not  start. 
The  Tea  Tax  and  Stamp  Act,  which  aroused  the 
patriot  rage  of  our  fathers,  were  virtues  by  the  side  of 
your  transgression ;  nor  would  it  be  easy  to  imagine, 
at  this  day,  any  measure  which  more  openly  and  per- 
versely defied  every  sentiment  of  justice,  humanity 
and  Christianity.  Am  I  not  right,  then,  in  calling  it 
the  worst  Bill  on  which  Congress  ever  acted  ? 

But  there  is  another  side  to  which  I  gladly  turn. 
Sir,  it  is  the  best  Bill  on  which  Congress  ever  acted ; 
for  it  annuls  all  past  Compromises  with  Slavery,  and 
makes  all  future  Compromises  impossible.  Thus  it  puts 
Freedom  and  Slavery  face  to  face,  and  bids  them 
grapple.  Who  can  doubt  the  result  ?  It  opens  wide 
the  door  of  the  Future,  when,  at  last,  there  will  really 
be  a  North,  and  the  Slave  Power  will  be  broken ; 
when  this  wretched  Despotism  will  cease  to  dominate 
over  our  Government,  no  longer  impressing  itself  upon 
everything  at  home  and  abroad;  when  the  National 
Government  shall  be  divorced  in  every  way  from 
Slavery,  and,  according  to  the  true  intention  of  our 
fathers,  Freedom  shall  be  established  by  Congress 
everywhere,  at  least  beyond  the  local  limits  of  the 
States. 

Slavery  will  then  be  driven  from  its  usurped  foot- 
hold here  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  the  National 
Territories,  and  elsewhere  beneath  the  National  flag  ; 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  as  vile  as  it  is  unconstitutional, 
will  become  a  dead  letter  ;  and  the  domestic  Slave- 
trade,  so  far  as  it  can  be  reached,  but  especially  on  the 
high  seas,  will  be  blasted  by  Congressional  Prohibition. 
Everywhere  within  the  sphere  of  Congress,  the  great 
Northern  Hammer  will  descend  to  smite  the  wrong ; 


yr*  NEBBASKA   AND    KANSAS.  323 

and  the  irresistible  cry  will  break  forth.,  "  No  more 
Slave  States ! " 

Thus,  sir,  now  standing  at  the  very  grave  of  Free- 
dom in  Nebraska  and  Kansas,  I  lift  myself  to  the 
vision  of  that  happy  resurrection,  by  which  Freedom 
will  be  secured,  not  only  in  these  Territories,  but 
everywhere  under  the  National  Government.  More 
clearly  than  ever  before,  I  now  penetrate  that  "  All- 
Hail-Hereafter,"  when  Slavery  must  disappear.  Proud- 
ly I  discern  the  flag  of  my  country,  as  it  ripples  in 
every  breeze,  at  last  become  in  reality,  as  in  name,  the 
Flag  of  Freedom  —  undoubted,  pure  and  irresistible. 
Am  I  not  right,  then,  in  calling  this  Bill  the  best  on 
which  Congress  ever  acted  ? 

Sorrowfully  I  bend  before  the  wrong  you  are  about 
to  commit.  Joyfully  I  welcome  all  the  promises  of 
the  future. 


When  Mr.  Sumner  took  his  seat,  he  was  followed  by  Mr. 
MASON,  of  Virginia,  who  spoke  as  follows  : 

I  understand  that  the  petitions  which  the  Senator  [Mr.  Sum- 
ner] who  has  just  taken  his  seat  offers,  were  to  be  admitted  as 
they  were  offered  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Senate.  Two 
of  them,  when  offered,  were  sent  to  the  President's  table.  The 
last  he  has  reserved,  and  made  the  vehicle  for  communicating 
the  sentiments  of  the  pulpits  of  New  England  to  the  Senate,  on 
the  subject  of  this  Bill.  I  object  to  its  reception,  and  I  object  to 
it,  because  I  understand  that  Senator  to  say  that  it  is  verbatim 
the  petition  that  was  presented  by  his  honorable  colleague  who  is 
not  now  with  us,  in  which  the  clergy  presented  themselves  in 
this  Senate  and  to  the  country,  as  a  third  estate,  speaking  not  as 
American  citizens,  but  as  clergymen,  and  in  that  character  only. 
I  object  to  its  reception.  I  object  to  it,  that  I  may  not  in  any 
manner  minister  to  the  unchristian  purposes  of  the  clergy  of 
New  England,  as  the  Senator  has  just  announced  them.  I  object 


324    FINAL  PKOTEST  AGAINST  SLAVERY  IN 

to  it,  that  I  may  be  in  no  manner  responsible  for  the  prostitution 
of  their  office,  (once  called  holy  and  sacred,  with  them  no  longer 
so,)  in  the  face  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  American  people.  I 
object  to  it,  that  the  clergymen  of  my  own  honored  State,  and  of 
the  South,  may,  as  holding  a  common  office  in  the  ministry  of 
the  gospel,  be  in  no  manner  confounded  with  or  contaminated  by 
these  clergymen  of  New  England,  if  the  Senator  represents  them 
correctly. 

Sir,  if  the  Senator  has  represented  these  clergymen  correctly, 
I  rejoice  that  there  is  to  be  a  separation  between  the  church 
North  and  the  church  South  ;  for,  I  say,  if  these  men  dare  to 
lay  aside  the  character  of  American  citizens,  and  come  here  pro- 
faning their  office,  profaning  the  name  of  the  Almighty,  for  the 
purpose  of  political  alliances,  they  are  unworthy  of  their  associ- 
ates in  the  church.  Sir,  it  is  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  this 
country  that  a  church  of  any  denomination  has  asserted  a  right 
to  be  heard,  as  a  church,  upon  the  floors  of  legislation  ;  and  if 
the  Senator  represents  that  body  correctly,  they  have  profaned 
their  office,  and  I  predict  now  a  total  separation  between  the 
church  North  and  the  church  South,  if  I  understand  the  senti- 
ments of  the  church  South.  The  church  there,  I  know,  is  yet 
pure  in  its  great  and  holy  mission.  When  its  ministers  address 
themselves  from  the  pulpit,  they  are  heard  with  respect,  under 
the  sanctity  of  their  office.  You  find  none  of  them  coming  here 
to  the  doors  of  legislation  to  mingle  in  political  strife.  They 
truly  hold  themselves  "  unspotted  from  the  world." 

If  the  Senator  who  has  just  taken  his  seat  has  correctly  ex- 
pounded the  clergymen  of  New  England,  I  object  to  that  petition. 
If  he  has  correctly  stated  that  it  is  verbatim  copied  from  the 
petition  presented  by  his  colleague,  I  say  it  is  a  prostitution  of 
their  office  to  the  embrace  of  political  party  ;  and  the  Senate 
shall  not,  by  my  assent,  be  made  the  medium  of  so  unholy  an 
alliance.  I  do  not  mean  to  go  further  into  this  debate  ;  but  I 
object  to  the  reception  of  the  petition. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER  said  :  The  petitions  cannot  be  received 
without  unanimous  consent. 

Mr.  SUMMER  in  reply.  It  may  be,  sir,  at  this 
moment,  within  the  competency  of  the  honorable  Sen- 


NEBRASKA   AND   KANSAS.  325 

ator  from  Virginia  to  object  to  the  reception  of  these 
remonstrances ;  but  I  am  satisfied  that,  at  another 
time,  his  calmer  judgment  will  not  approve  this  course, 
much  less  the  ground  on  which  now,  as  well  as  on  a 
former  occasion,  he  has  undertaken  to  impeach  the 
right  of  clergymen  to  appear,  by  petition  or  remon- 
strance, at  the  bar  of  Congress.  Sir,  in  refusing  to 
receive  these  remonstrances,  or  in  neglecting  them  in 
any  way,  on  reasons  assigned  in  this  Chamber,  you 
treat  them  with  an  indignity  which  becomes  more 
marked,  because  it  is  the  constant  habit  of  the  Senate 
to  welcome  remonstrances  from  members  of  the  Society 
-of  Friends,  in  their  religious  character,  and  from  all 
other  persons,  by  any  designation  which  they  may 
adopt.  Booksellers  remonstrate  against  the  interna- 
tional copyright  treaty ;  last  makers  against  a  proposed 
change  in  the  patent  laws  ;  and  only  lately  the  tobac- 
conists have  remonstrated  against  certain  regulations 
touching  tobacco  ;  and  all  these  remonstrances  have 
been  received  with  respect,  and  referred  to  appropriate 
Committees  in  the  Senate.  But  the  clergy  of  New 
England,  when  protesting  against  a  measure  which 
they  believe,  with  singular  unanimity,  full  of  peril  and 
shame  to  our  country,  are  told  to  stay  at  home. 
Almost  the  jeer  has  gone  forth,  "Go  up,  thou  bald 
head ! "  If  not  well,  it  is  at  least  natural,  that  the  act 
you  are  about  to  commit  should  be  attended  by  this 
congenial  outrage. 
28 


DEFENCE   OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

SPEECHES  IN  THE  SENATE  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES,  26TH  AND 
28TH  JUNE,  ON  THE  BOSTON  MEMORIAL  FOR  THE  REPEAL 
OF  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  BILL,  AND  IN  REPLY  TO  MESSRS. 
JONES,  OF  TENNESSEE,  BUTLER,  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA,  AND 
MASON,  OF  VIRGINIA. 


On  the  22d  June,  Mr.  Rockwell,  of  Massachusetts,  presented 
the  following  Memorial,  stating  that  it  was  signed  by  twenty- 
nine  hundred  persons,  chiefly  of  Boston,  and  moved  its  reference 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  : 

"  To  the  Honorable  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
in  Congress  assembled  :  The  undersigned,  men  of  Massachusetts, 
ask  for  the  repeal  of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  1850,  known  as  the 
FUGITIVE  SLAVE  BILL." 

On  26th  June,  on  the  motion  to  refer  the  memorial,  a  debate 
ensued,  in  which  Mr.  Jones,  of  Tennessee,  Mr.  Rockwell,  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, and  then  again  Mr.  Jones,  took  part.  At  this  stage, 
Mr.  SUMNEE  took  the  floor,  and  spoke  as  follows  : 

ME.  PRESIDENT  :  I  begin  by  answering  the  inter- 
rogatory propounded  by  the  Senator  from  Tennessee 
[Mr.  Jones].  He  asks,  "  Can  any  one  suppose  that, 
if  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  be  repealed,  this  Union  can 
exist  ?  "  To  which  I  reply  at  once,  that  if  the  Union 
be  in  any  way  dependent  on  an  Act  —  I  cannot  call  it  a 
law  —  so  revolting  in  every  regard  as  that  to  which  he 

[326] 


DEFENCE    OF   MASSACHUSETTS.  327 

refers,  then  it  ought  not  to  exist.  To  much  else  that 
has  fallen  from  that  Senator  I  do  not  desire  to  reply. 
He  has  discussed  at  length  matters  already  handled 
again  and  again  in  the  long  drawn  out  debates  of  this 
session.  Like  the  excited  hero  of  Macedonia,  he  has 
renewed  past  conflicts, 

"  And  thrice  he  routed  all  his  foes, 
And  thrice  he  slew  the  slain." 

Of  what  the  Senator  has  said  on  the  relations  of  Sen- 
ators, North  and  South,  of  a  particular  party,  it  is  not 
my  province  to  speak.  And  yet  I  cannot  turn  from  it 
without  expressing,  at  least,  a  single  aspiration,  that 
men  from  the  North,  whether  Whigs  or  Democrats, 
will  neither  be  cajoled  or  driven  by  any  temptation,  or 
lash,  from  the  support  of  those  principles  of  freedom 
which  are  inseparable  from  the  true  honor  and  welfare 
of  the  country.  At  last,  I  trust,  there  will  be  a  back- 
bone in  the  North. 

My  colleague  has  already  remarked,  that  this  memo- 
rial proceeds  from  persons  of  whom  many  were  open 
supporters  of  the  alleged  Compromises  of  1850,  includ- 
ing even  the  odious  Fugitive  Slave  Bill.  I  have  looked 
over  the  long  list,  and,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  find  this 
to  be  true.  And,  in  my  opinion,  the  change  shown  by 
these  men  is  typical  of  the  change  in  the  community 
of  which  they  constitute  a  prominent  part.  Once  the 
positive  upholders  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  they  now 
demand  its  unconditional  repeal. 

There  is  another  circumstance  worthy  of  especial 
remark.  This  memorial  proceeds  mainly  from  persons 
connected  with  trade  and  commerce.  Now,  it  is  a  fact 
too  well  known  in  the  history  of  England,  and  of  our 


328  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

own  country,  that  these  persons,  while  often  justly 
distinguished  by  their  individual  charities  and  munifi- 
cence, have  been  lukewarm  in  their  opposition  to 
Slavery.  Twice  in  English  history  the  "mercantile 
interest "  frowned  upon  the  endeavors  to  suppress  the 
atrocity  of  Algerine  Slavery  ;  steadfastly  in  England  it 
sought  to  baffle  Wilberforce's  great  effort  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  African  Slave-trade  ;  and,  at  the  formation 
of  our  own  Constitution,  it  stipulated  a  sordid  com- 
promise, by  which  this  same  detested,  Heaven-defying 
traffic,  was  saved  for  twenty  years  from  American 
judgment.  But  now  it  is  all  changed  —  at  least  in 
Boston.  The  representatives  of  the  "  mercantile  in- 
terest "  place  themselves  in  the  front  of  the  new 
movement  against  Slavery,  and,  by  their  explicit  me- 
morial, call  for  the  abatement  of  a  grievance  which 
they  have  bitterly  felt  in  Boston. 

Mr.  President,  this  memorial  is  interesting  to  me, 
first,  as  it  asks  a  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  and 
secondly,  as  it  comes  from  Massachusetts.  That  repeal 
I  shall  be  glad  at  any  time,  now  and  hereafter,  as  in 
times  past,  to  sustain  by  vote  and  argument ;  and  I 
trust  never  to  fail  in  any  just  regard  for  the  sentiments 
or  interests  of  Massachusetts.  With  these  few  remarks, 
I  would  gladly  close.  But  there  has  been  an  arraign- 
ment here  to-day,  both  .of  myself  and  of  the  Common- 
wealth which  I  represent.  To  all  that  has  been  said 
of  myself  or  the  Commonwealth  —  so  far  as  it  is  an 
impeachment  of  either  —  so  far  as  it  subjects  either  to 
any  just  censure,  I  plead  openly,  for  myself  and  for 
Massachusetts,  "  not  guilty."  But  pardon  me,  if  I  do 
not  submit  to  be  tried  by  the  Senate,  fresh  from  the 
injustice  of  the  Nebraska  Bill.  In  the  language  of 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  329 

the  common  law  I  put  myself  upon  "  God  and  the 
country,"  and  claim  the  same  trial  for  my  honored 
Commonwealth. 

So  far  as  the  arraignment  touches  me  personally,  I 
hardly  care  to  speak.  It  is  true  that  I  have  not  hes- 
itated, here  and  elsewhere,  to  express  my  open,  sincere, 
and  unequivocal  condemnation  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Bill.  I  have  denounced  it  as  at  once  a  violation  of  tl:  e 
law  of  God,  and  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  ;  and  I  here  repeat  this  denunciation. 

Its  violation  of  the  Constitution  is  manifold. 

It  commits  the  great  question  of  human  freedom  — 
than  which  none  is  more  sacred  in  the  law  —  not  to  a 
solemn  trial,  but  to  summary  proceedings. 

It  commits  this  question  —  not  to  one  of  the  high 
tribunals  of  the  land  —  but  to  the  unaided  judgment 
of  a  single  petty  magistrate. 

It  commits  this  question  to  a  magistrate,  appointed, 
not  by  the  President  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate, 
but  by  the  court ;  holding  his  office,  not  during  good 
behavior,  but  merely  during  the  will  of  the  court ; 
and  receiving,  not  a  regular  salary,  but  fees  according 
to  each  individual  case. 

It  authorizes  judgment  on  ex  parte  evidence,  by  affi- 
davits, without  the  sanction  of  cross-examination. 

It  denies  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  ever  known  as 
the  palladium  of  the  citizen. 

Contrary  to  the  declared  purposes  of  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution,  it  sends  the  fugitive  back  "at  the 
public  expense." 

Adding  meanness  to  the  violation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, it  bribes  the  Commissioner  by  a  double  fee  to 
pronounce  against  Freedom.  If  he  dooms  a  man  to 
28* 


330  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

Slavery,  the  reward  is  ten  dollars ;  but,  saving  him  to 
Freedom,  his  dole  is  five  dollars. 

But  this  is  not  all.  On  two  other  capital  grounds 
do  I  oppose  this  Act  as  unconstitutional ;  first,  as  it  is 
an  assumption  by  Congress  of  powers  not  delegated  by 
the  Constitution,  and  in  derogation  of  the  rights  of  the 
States ;  and,  secondly,  as  it  takes  away  that  essential 
birthright  of  the  citizen,  trial  by  jury,  in  a  question  of 
personal  liberty  and  a  suit  at  common  law.  Thus  ob- 
noxious, I  have  regarded  it  as  an  enactment  totally 
devoid  of  all  constitutional  obligation,  as  it  is  clearly 
devoid  of  all  moral,  while  it  is  disgraceful  to  the 
country  and  the  age.  And,  sir,  I  have  hoped  and 
labored  for  the  creation  of  such  a  Public  Opinion,  firm, 
enlightened  and  generous,  as  should  render  the  Act 
practically  inoperative,  and  should  press,  without  ceas- 
ing, upon  Congress  for  its  repeal.  For  all  that  I  have 
said  on  this  head,  I  have  no  regrets  or  apologies ;  but 
rather  joy  and  satisfaction.  Glad  I  am  in  having  said 
it ;  glad  I  am  now  in  the  opportunity  of  affirming  it  all 
anew.  Thus  much  for  myself. 

In  response  for  Massachusetts,  there  are  other 
things.  Something  surely  must  be  pardoned  to  her 
history.  In  Massachusetts  stands  Boston.  In  Boston 
stands  Faneuil  Hall,  where,  throughout  the  perils 
which  preceded  the  Revolution,  our  patriot  fathers 
assembled  to  vow  themselves  to  Freedom.  Here,  in 
those  days,  spoke  James  Otis,  full  of  the  thought  that 
"  the  people's  safety  is  the  law  of  God."  Here,  also, 
spoke  Joseph  Warren,  inspired  by  the  sentiment  that 
"  death  with  all  its  tortures  is  preferable  to  Slavery." 
And  here,  also,  thundered  John  Adams,  fervid  with 
the  conviction  that  "  consenting  to  Slavery  is  a  sacrile- 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  331 

gious  breach  of  trust."  Not  far  from  this  venerable 
hall  —  between  this  temple  of  freedom  and  the  very 
court-house,  to  which  the  Senator  [Mr.  Jones]  has 
referred  —  is  the  street,  where,  in  1770,  the  first  blood 
was  spilt  in  conflict  between  British  troops  and  Ameri- 
can citizens,  and  among  the  victims  was  one  of  that 
African  race  which  you  so  much  despise.  Almost 
within  sight  is  Bunker  Hill ;  further  off,  Lexington 
and  Concord.  Amidst  these  scenes,  a  Slave-Hunter 
from  Virginia  appears,  and  the  disgusting  rites  begin 
by  which  a  fellow-man  is  doomed  to  bondage.  Sir, 
can  you  wonder  that  the  people  were  moved  ? 

"  Who  can  be  wise,  amazed,  temperate  and  furious, 
Loyal  and  neutral,  in  a  moment  ?   No  man," 

It  is  true  that  the  Slave  Act  was  with  difficulty 
executed,  and  that  one  of  its  servants  perished  in  the 
effort.  On  these  grounds  the  Senator  from  Tennessee 
charges  Boston  with  fanaticism.  I  express  no  opinion 
on  the  conduct  of  individuals  ;  but  I  do  say,  that  the 
fanaticism,  which  the  Senator  condemns,  is  not  new  in 
Boston.  It  is  the  same  which  opposed  the  execution 
of  the  Stamp  Act,  and  finally  secured  its  repeal.  It  is 
the  same  which*  opposed  the  Tea  Tax.  It  is  the  fanat- 
icism which  finally  triumphed  on  Bunker  Hill.  The 
Senator  says  that  Boston  is  filled  with  traitors.  That 
charge  is  not  new.  Boston,  of  old,  was  the  home  of 
Hancock  and  Adams.  Her  traitors  now  are  those 
who  are  truly  animated  by  the  spirit  of  the  American 
Revolution.  In  condemning  them,  in  condemning 
Massachusetts,  in  condemning  these  remonstrants,  you 
simply  give  a  proper  conclusion  to  the  utterance  on 


332  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

this  floor,  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  "  a 
self-evident  lie." 

Here  I  might  leave  the  imputations  on  Massachu- 
setts. But  the  case  is  stronger  yet.  I  have  referred 
to  the  Stamp  Act.  The  parallel  is  of  such  aptness  and 
importance,  that,  though  on  a  former  occasion  I  pre- 
sented it  to  the  Senate,  I  cannot  forbear  from  pressing 
it  again.  As  the  precise  character  of  this  Act  may  not 
be  familiar,  allow  me  to  remind  the  Senate,  that  it  was 
an  attempt  to  draw  money  from  the  Colonies  through 
a  stamp  tax,  while  the  determination  of  certain  ques- 
tions of  forfeiture  under  the  statute  was  delegated,  not 
to  the  courts  of  common  law,  but  to  courts  of  admi- 
ralty, without  trial  by  jury.  This  Act  was  denounced 
in  the  Colonies  at  once  on  its  passage,  as  contrary  to 
the  British  Constitution,  on  two  principal  grounds, 
identical  in  character  with  the  two  chief  grounds  on 
which  the  Slave  Act  is  now  declared  to  be  unconstitu- 
tional ;  first,  as  an  assumption  by  Parliament  of  pow- 
ers not  belonging  to  it,  and  an  infraction  of  rights 
secured  to  the  Colonies  ;  and  secondly,  as  a  denial  of 
trial  by  jury  in  certain  cases  of  property.  On  these 
grounds  the  Stamp  Act  was  held  to  be  an  outrage. 

The  Colonies  were  aroused  against  it.  Virginia  first 
declared  herself  by  solemn  resolutions,  which  the  timid 
thought  "treasonable;"  —  yes,  sir,  " treasonable,"  — 
even  as  that  word  is  now  applied  to  recent  manifesta- 
tions of  opinion  in  Boston  —  even  to  the  memorial  of  her 
twenty-runs  hundred  merchants.  But  these  "  treason- 
able "  resolutions  soon  found  a  response.  New  York 
followed.  Massachusetts  came  next.  In  an  address 
from  the  Legislature  to  the  Governor,  the  true  ground 
of  opposition  to  the  Stamp  Act,  coincident  with  the 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  333 

two  radical  objections  to  the  Slave  Act,  are  clearly  set 
forth,  with  the  following  pregnant  conclusion  : 

"  We  deeply  regret  that  the  Parliament  has  seen  fit  to  pass 
such  an  Act  as  the  Stamp  Act  ;  we  flatter  ourselves  that  the 
hardships  of  it  will  shortly  appear  to  them  in  such  a  light  as 
shall  induce  them,  in  their  wisdom,  to  repeal  it ;  in  the  mean 
lime,  we  must  beg  your  Excellency  to  excuse  us  from  doing  any- 
thing to  assist  in  the  execution  of  it." 

The  Stamp  Act  was  welcomed  in  the  Colonies  by 
the  Tories  of  that  day,  precisely  as  the  unconstitutional 
Slave  Act  has  been  welcomed  by  imperious  numbers 
among  us.  Hutchinson,  at  that  time  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor and  Judge  in  Massachusetts,  wrote  to  Ministers 
in  England : 

"  The  Stamp  Act  is  received  with  as  much  decency  as  could 
be  expected.  It  leaves  no  room  for  evasion,  and  will  execute 
itself." 

Like  the  Judges  of  our  day,  in  charges  to  Grand 
Juries,  he  resolutely  vindicated  the  Act,  and  admonished 
"  the  jurors  and  the  people"  to  obey.  Like  Governors 
in  our  day,  Bernard,  in  his  speech  to  the  Legislature 
of  Massachusetts,  demanded  unreasoning  submission. 
"I  shall  not,"  says  this  British  Govern&r,  "  enter  into 
any  disquisition  of  the  policy  of  the  Act.  I  have  only 
to  say  it  is  an  Act  of  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain." 
Like  Marshals  of  our  day,  the  Officers  of  the  Customs 
are  recorded  as  having  made  "  application  for  a  mili- 
tary force  to  assist  them  in  the  execution  of  their  duty." 
The  elaborate  answer  of  Massachusetts  —  the  work  of 
Samuel  Adams,  and  one  of  the  corner-stones  of  our 
history  —  was  pronounced  "  the  ravings  of  a  parcel 
of  wild  enthusiasts,"  even  as  recent  proceedings  in 
Boston,  resulting  in  the  memorial  before  you,  have 


334  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

been  characterized  on  this  floor.  Was  I  not  right  in 
adducing  this  parallel  ? 

The  country  was  aroused  against  the  execution  of 
this  Act.  And  here  Boston  took  the  lead.  In  formal 
instructions  to  her  Representatives,  adopted  unani- 
mously in  town  meeting  at  Fanueil  Hall,  the  following 
rule  of  conduct  was  prescribed  : 

•  "  We,  therefore,  think  it  our  indispensable  duty,  in  justice  to 
ourselves  and  posterity,  as  it  is  our  undoubted  privilege,  in  the 
most  open  and  unreserved,  but  decent  and  respectful  terms,  to 
declare  our  greatest  dissatisfaction  with  this  law.  And  we  think 
it  incumbent  upon  you  by  no  means  to  join  in  any  public  mea- 
sures for  countenancing  and  assisting  in  the  execution  of  the 
same,  but  to  use  your  best  endeavors  in  the  General  Assembly 
to  have  the  inherent,  inalienable  rights  of  the  people  of  this 
Province  asserted,  and  vindicated,  and  left  upon  the  public  record, 
that  posterity  may  never  have  reason  to  charge  the  present 
times  with  the  guilt  of  tamely  giving  them  away." 

The  opposition  spread  and  deepened,  and  one  of  its 
natural  tendencies  was  to  outbreak  and  violence.  On 
one  occasion  in  Boston,  it  showed  itself  in  the  lawless- 
ness of  a  mob,  of  a  most  formidable  character,  even  as 
is  now  charged.  Liberty,  in  her  struggles,  is  too  often 
driven  to  force*  But  the  town,  at  a  public  meeting  in 
Fanueil  Hall,  called  without  delay,  on  the  motion  of 
the  opponents  of  the  Stamp  Act,  with  James  Otis  as 
Chairman,  condemned  the  outrage.  Eager  in  hostility 
to  the  execution  of  the  Act,  Boston  cherished  municipal 
order,  and  constantly  discountenanced  all  tumult,  vio- 
lence and  illegal  proceedings.  On  these  two  grounds 
she  then  stood ;  and  her  position  was  widely  recog- 
nized. In  reply,  March  27,  1766,  to  an  address  from 
the  inhabitants  of  Plymouth,  her  own  consciousness  of 
duty  done  is  thus  expressed  : 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  335 

"  If  the  inhabitants  of  Boston  have  taken  the  legal  and  war- 
rantable measures  to  prevent  that  misfortune,  of  all  others  the 
most  to  be  dreaded,  the  execution  of  the  Stamp  Act,  and  as  a 
necessary  means  of  preventing  it,  have  made  any  spirited  appli- 
cations for  opening  the  custom  houses  and  courts  of  justice  ;  if, 
at  the  same  time,  they  have  borne  their  testimony  against  out- 
rageous tumults  and  illegal  proceedings,  and  given  any  example 
of  the  love  of  peace  and  good  order,  next  to  the  consciousness  of 
having  done  their  duty  is  the  satisfaction  of  meeting  with  the 
approbation  of  any  of  their  fellow-countrymen." 

Thus  was  the  Stamp  Act  annulled,  even  before  its 
actual  repeal,  which  was  pressed  with  assiduity  by 
petition  and  remonstrance,  on  the  next  meeting  of 
Parliament.  Among  the  potent  influences  was  the 
entire  concurrence  of  the  merchants,  and  especially  a 
remonstrance  against  the  Stamp  Act  by  the  merchants 
of  New  York,  like  that  now  made  against  the  Slave 
Act  by  the  merchants  of  Boston.  Some  sought  at  first 
only  for  its  modification.  Even  James  Otis  began  Avith 
this  moderate  aim.  The  King  himself  showed  a  dis- 
position to  yield  to  this  extent.  But  Franklin,  who 
was  then  in  England,  when  asked  whether  the  Colonies 
would  submit  to  the  Act,  if  mitigated  in  certain  par- 
ticulars, replied :  "  No,  never,  unless  compelled  by 
force  of  arms."  Then  it  was,  that  the  great  Commoner, 
William  Pitt,  in  an  ever-memorable  speech,  uttered 
words  which  fitly  belong  to  this  occasion.  He  said : 

"  Sir,  I  have  been  charged  with  giving  birth  to  sedition  in 
America.  They  have  spoken  their  sentiments  with  freedom 
against  this  unhappy  Act,  and  that  freedom  has  become  their 
crime.  Sorry  I  am  to  hear  the  liberty  of  speech  in  this  House 
imputed  as  a  crime.  But  the  imputation  shall  not  discourage 
me.  It  is  a  liberty  I  mean  to  exercise.  No  gentleman  ought  to 
be  afraid  to  exercise  it.  It  is  a  liberty  by  which  the  gentleman 
who  calumniates  it  might  and  ought  to  have  profited.  The  gentle- 


336  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

man  tells  us  America  is  obstinate  ;  America  is  almost  MI  open 
rebellion.  I  rejoice  that  America  has  resisted.  Three  millions 
of  slaves,  so  dead  to  all  the  feelings  of  liberty  as  voluntarily  to 
submit  to  be  slaves,  would  have  been  fit  instruments  to  make 
slaves  of  all  the  rest.  I  would  not  debate  a  particular  point  of 
law  with  the  gentleman  ;  but  I  draw  my  ideas  of  Freedom  from 
the  vital  powers  of  the  British  Constitution  —  not  from  the  crude 
and  fallacious  notions  too  much  relied  upon,  as  if  we  were  but  in 
the  morning  of  liberty.  I  can  acknowledge  no  veneration  for 
any  procedure,  law,  or  ordinance,  that  is  repugnant  to  reason 
and  the  first  elements  of  our  Constitution.  The  Americans  have 
been  wronged.  They  have  been  driven  to  madness.  Upon  the 
whole,  I  will  beg  leave  to  tell  the  House  what  is  really  my  opin 
ion.  It  is,  that  the  Stamp  Jlct  be  repealed,  absolutely,  totally 
and  immediately,  and  that  the  reason  for  the  repeal  be  assigned 
because  it  was  founded  on  an  erroneous  principle." 

Thus  spoke  this  great  orator,  at  the  time  tutelary 
guardian  of  American  liberty.  He  was  not  unheeded. 
Within  less  than  a  year  from  its  original  passage,  the 
Stamp  Act  —  assailed  as  unconstitutional  on  the  pre- 
cise grounds  which  I  now  occupy  in  assailing  the  Slave 
Act — was  driven  from  the  statute  book. 

But,  sir,  the  Stamp  Act  was,  at  most,  an  infringe- 
ment of  civil  liberty  only,  not  of  personal  liberty.  It 
touched  questions  of  property  only,  but  not  the  personal 
liberty  of  any  man.  Under  it,  no  freeman  could  be 
seized  as  a  slave.  There  was  an  unjust  tax  of  a  few 
pence,  with  the  chances  of  amercement  by  a  single 
judge  without  jury ;  but,  by  this  statute,  no  person 
could  be  deprived  of  that  vital  right  of  all,  which  is  to 
other  rights  as  the  soul  to  the  body  —  the  right  of  a 
man  to  himself.  As  liberty  is  more  than  property,  as 
man  is  above  the  beasts  that  perish,  as  heaven  is  higher 
than  earth,  so  are  the  rights  assailed  by  an  American 
Congress  above  those  once  assailed  by  the  British 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  337 

Parliament ;  and  just  in  this  proportion  must  be  our 
condemnation  of  the  Slave  Act  by  the  side  of  the  Stamp 
Act.  And  this  will  yet  be  declared  by  history. 

I  call  upon  you,  then,  to  receive  the  memorial,  and 
hearken  to  its  prayer.  All  other  memorials  asking  for 
changes  in  existing  legislation  are  treated  with  respect, 
promptly  referred,  and  acted  upon.  This  should  not 
be  an  exception.  The  memorial  simply  asks  the  repeal 
of  an  obnoxious  statute,  which  is  entirely  within  the 
competency  of  Congress.  It  proceeds  from  a  large 
number  of  respectable  citizens  whose  autograph  signa- 
tures are  attached.  It  is  brief  and  respectful  in  form  ; 
and,  in  its  very  brevity,  shows  that  spirit  of  freedom 
which  should  awaken  a  generous  response.  In  refusing 
to  receive  it  or  refer  it,  according  to  the  usage  of  the 
Senate,  or  in  treating  it  with  any  indignity,  you  offer 
an  affront,  not  only  to  these  numerous  petitioners,  but 
also  to  the  great  right  of  petition,  which  is  never  more 
sacred  than  when  exercised  in  behalf  of  Freedom  against 
an  obnoxious  statute.  Permit  me  to  add,  that  by  this 
course  you  provoke  the  very  spirit  which  you  would 
repress.  There  is  a  certain  plant  which  is  said  to  grow 
when  trodden  upon.  It  remains  to  be  seen  if  the  Boston 
petitioners  have  not  something  of  this  quality.  But  this 
I  know,  sir,  that  the  Slave  Act,  like  vice,  is  of  so  hideous 
a  mien,  that  "  to  be  hated  it  needs  only  to  be  seen ;  " 
and  the  occurrences  of  this  day  will  make  it  visible  and 
palpable  to  the  people  in  new  forms  of  injustice. 


This  speech  was  followed  by  an  angry  debate,  of  a  highly  per- 
sonal character,  in  which  Mr.  Butler,  of  South  Carolina,  Mr. 
Mason,  of  Virginia,  Mr.  Pettit,  of  Indiana,  Mr.  Dixon,  of  Ken- 
29 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

tuoky,  Mr.  Mallory,  of  Florida,  and  Mr.  Clay,  of  Alabama,  took 
part  —  all  directed  against  Mr.  Sumner.  On  the  28th  June,  an 
effort  was  made  to  close  the  debate,  or  at  least  to  postpone  it, 
when  Mr.  SUMNER  remarked  : 

I  am  unwilling  to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  general 
wish  of  the  Senate  to  go  on  with  its  business.  I  de- 
sire at  all  times  to  promote  its  business ;  but  this 
question  has  been  presented  and  debated.  Several 
Senators  have  already  expressed  themselves  on  it. 
Other  Senators  within  my  knowledge  expect  to  be 
heard.  I  too,  sir,  claim  the  privilege  of  being  heard 
again  in  reply  to  remarks  which  have  fallen  from  hon- 
orable Senators.  I  hope,  therefore,  the  memorial  will 
have  no  disposition  that  will  preclude  its  complete  dis- 
cussion. 


SECOND     SPEECH. 

The  Senate  refused  to  postpone  the  discussion,  and  the  assault 
on  Mr.  Sumner  went  on.  At  last  he  obtained  the  floor  and  spoke 
as  follows : 

ME.  PRESIDENT  :  Since  I  had  the  honor  of  address- 
ing the  Senate  two  days  ago,  various  Senators  have 
spoken.  Among  these,  several  have  alluded  to  me  in 
terms  clearly  beyond  the  sanctions  of  parliamentary 
debate.  Of  this  I  make  no  complaint,  though,  for  the 
honor  of  the  Senate,  at  least,  it  we're  well  that  it  were 
otherwise.  If  to  them  it  seems  fit,  courteous,  parlia- 
mentary, 

"  to  unpack  the  heart  with  words, 

And  fall  a  cursing,  like  a  very  drab, 
A  scullion," 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  339 

I  will  not  interfere  with  the  enjoyment  which  they 
find  in  such  exposure  of  themselves.  They  have  cer- 
tainly given  us  a  taste  of  their  characters.  Two  of 
them,  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  [Mr.  Butler], 
who  sits  immediately  before  me,  and  the  Senator  from 
Virginia  [Mr.  Mason],  who  sits  immediately  behind 
me,  are  not  young.  Their  heads  are  amply  crowned . 
by  time.  They  did  not  speak  from  any  ebullition  of 
youth,  but  from  the  confirmed  temper  of  age.  It  is 
melancholy  to  believe  that,  in  this  debate,  they  showed 
themselves  as  they  are.  It  were  charitable  to  believe 
that  they  are  in  reality  better  than  they  showed  them- 
selves. 

I  think,  sir,  that  I  am  not  the  only  person  on  this 
floor,  who,  in  lately  listening  to  these  two  self-confident 
champions  of  the  peculiar  fanaticism  of  the  South,  was 
reminded  of  the  striking  words  by  Jefferson,  picturing 
the  influence  of  Slavery,  where  he  says,  "  The  whole 
commerce  between  master  and  slave  is  a  perpetual 
exercise  of  the  most  boisterous  passions,  the  most 
unremitting  despotism  on  the  one  part,  and  degrading 
submission  on  the  other.  Our  children  see  this,  and 
learn  to  imitate  it ;  for  man  is  an  imitative  animal. 
The  parent  storms.  The  child  looks  on,  catches  the 
lineaments  of  wrath,  puts  on  the  same  airs  in  the 
circle  of  smaller  slaves,  gives  loose  to  his  worst  pas- 
sions, and,  thus  nursed,  educated  and  daily  exercised 
in  tyranny,  cannot  but  be  stamped  by  it  with  odious 
peculiarities.  The  man  must  be  a  prodigy  who  can 
retain  his  manners  and  morals  undepraved  by  such  cir- 
cumstances." Nobody  who  witnessed  the  Senator  from 
South  Carolina  or  the  Senator  from  Virginia  in  this 
debate,  will  place  either  of  them  among  the  "  prodigies  " 


340  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

described  by  Jefferson.  As  they  spoke,  the  Senate 
Chamber  must  have  seemed  to  them,  in  the  character- 
istic fantasy  of  the  moment,  a  plantation  well-stocked 
with  slaves,  over  which  the  lash  of  the  overseer  had 
free  swing.  Sir,  it  gives  me  no  pleasure  to  say  these 
things.  It  is  not  according  to  my  nature.  Bear  wit- 
ness, that  I  do  it  only  in  just  self-defence  against  the 
unprecedented  assaults  and  provocations  of  this  debate. 
And,  in  doing  it,  I  desire  to  warn  certain  Senators,  that 
if  they  expect,  by  any  ardor  of  menace  or  by  any 
tyrannical  frown,  to  shake  my  fixed  resolve,  they  ex- 
pect a  vain  thing. 

There  was,  perhaps,  little  that  fell  from  these  two 
champions,  as  the  fit  was  on,  which  deserves  reply. 
Certainly  not  the  hard  words  they  used  so  readily  and 
congenially.  The  veteran  Senator  from  Virginia  [Mr. 
Mason  J  complained  that  I  had  characterized  one  of 
his  "  constituents  "  —  a  person  who  went  all  the  way 
from  Virginia  to  Boston  in  pursuit  of  a  slave  —  as  a 
Slave-hunter.  Sir,  I  choose  to  call  things  by  their 
right  names.  White  I  call  white,  and  black  I  call 
black.  And  where  a  person  degrades  himself  to  the 
work  of  chasing  a  fellow-man,  who,  under  the  inspira- 
tion of  Freedom  and  the  guidance  of  the  north  star,  has 
sought  a  freeman's  home  far  away  from  the  -coffle  and 
the  chain  —  that  person,  whomsoever  he  may  be,  I  call 
a  Slave-hunter.  If  the  Senator  from  Virginia,  who 
professes  nicety  of  speech,  will  give  me  any  term 
which  more  precisely  describes  such  an  individual,  1 
will  use  it.  Until  then,  I  must  continue  to  use  the 
language  which  seems  to  me  so  apt.  But  this  very 
sensibility  of  the  veteran  Senator  at  a  just  term,  which 
truly  depicts  an  odious  character,  shows  a  shame  in 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  341 

which.  I  exult.  It  was  said  by  one  of  the  philosophers 
of  antiquity,  that  a  blush  is  the  sign  of  virtue,  and  permit 
me  to  add,  that,  in  this  violent  sensibility,  I  recognize 
a  blush  mantling  the  cheek  of  the  honorable  Senator, 
which  even  his  plantation  manners  cannot  conceal. 

And  the  venerable  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  too, 
[Mr.  Butler]  —  he  has  betrayed  his  sensibility.  Here 
let  me  say  that  this  Senator  knows  well  that  I  always 
listen  with  peculiar  pleasure  to  his  racy  and  exuberant 
speech,  as  it  gurgles  forth  —  sometimes  tinctured  by 
generous  ideas  —  except  when,  forgetful  of  history, 
and  in  defiance  of  reason,  he  undertakes  to  defend 
what  is  obviously  indefensible.  This  Senator  was 
disturbed,  when  to  his  inquiry,  personally,  pointedly 
and  vehemently  addressed  to  me,  whether  I  would 
join  in  returning  a  fellow-man  to  Slavery,  I  exclaimed, 
"  Is  thy  servant  a  dog,  that  he  should  do  this  thing  ? " 
In  fitful  phrases,  which  seemed  to  come  from  the  un- 
conscious excitement  so  common  with  the  Senator,  he 
shot  forth  various  cries  about  "  dogs ; "  and,  among 
.other  things,  asked  if  there  was  any  "dog"  in  the 
Constitution  ?  The  Senator  did  not  seem  to  bear  in 
mind,  through  the  heady  currents  of  that  moment, 
that,  by  the  false  interpretation  he  has  fastened  upon 
the  Constitution,  he  has  helped  to  nurture  there  a 
whole  kennel  of  Carolina  bloodhounds,  trained,  with 
savage  jaws  and  insatiable  scent,  for  the  hunt  of  flying 
bondmen.  No,  sir,  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any 
"kennel  of  bloodhounds,"  or  even  any  "dog,"  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

But,  Mr.  President,  since  the  brief  response  which  I 
made  to  the  inquiry  of  the  Senator,  and  which  leaped 
unconsciously  to  my  lips,  has  drawn  upon  me  various 
29* 


342  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

attacks,  all  marked  by  grossness  of  language  and  man- 
ner ;  since  I  have  been  charged  with  openly  declaring 
my  purpose  to  violate  the  Constitution,  and  to  break 
the  oath  which  I  have  taken  at  that  desk,  I  shall  be 
pardoned  for  showing  simply  how  a  few  plain  words 
will  put  all  this  down.  The  authentic  report  in  the 
Globe  shows  what  was  actually  said.  The  report  in 
the  Sentinel  is  substantially  the  same  ;  and  one  of  the 
New  York  papers,  which  has  been  put  into  my  hands 
since  I  entered  the  Senate  Chamber  to-day,  under  its 
telegraphic  head,  states  the  incident  with  substantial 
accuracy,  though  it  omits  the  personal  individual  ap- 
peal addressed  to  me  by  the  Senator,  and  which  is 
preserved  in  the  Globe.  Here  is  the  New  York  report : 

"  Mr.  BUTLER.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  Senator,  if  Congress 
repealed  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  would  Massachusetts  execute 
the  constitutional  requirements,  and  send  back  to  the  South  the 
absconding  slaves  ? 

"  Mr.  SUMXER.    Do  you  ask  if  I  would  send  back  a  slave  ? 

"  Mr.  BUTLEE.     Why,  yes. 

"  Mr.  SUMNEB.  '  Is  thy  servant  a  dog,  that  he  should  do  thia 
thing  ? '  " 

To  any  candid  mind,  either  of  these  reports  renders 
anything  further  superfluous.  The  answer  is  explicit 
and  above  impeachment.  It  indignantly  spurns  a 
service  from  which,  the  soul  recoils  ;  but  it  denies  no 
Constitutional  obligation.  But  the  Senators,  who  have 
been  so  swift  in  misrepresentation  and  in  assault  upon 
me  as  disloyal  to  the  Constitution,  deserve  to  be  ex- 
posed, and  it  shall  be  done. 

Now,  sir,  I  begin  by  adopting  as  my  guide  the 
authoritative  words  of  Andrew  Jackson,  in  1832,  in 
his  memorable  veto  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States. 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  343 

To  his  course,  at  that  critical  time,  were  opposed  the 
authority  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  his  oath  to  support 
the  Constitution.  Here  is  his  triumphant  reply : 

"  If  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  covers  the  whole  ground 
of  this  act,  it  ought  not  to  control  the  co-ordinate  authorities  of 
this  Government.  The  Congress,  the  Executive  and  the  Court, 
must  each  for  itself  be  guided  by  its  own  opinion  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. Each  public  officer,  who  takes  an  oath  to  support  the 
Constitution,  swears  that  he  will  support  it  as  he  understands  it, 
and  not  as  it  is  understood  by  others.  It  is  as  much  the  duty 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  of  the  Senate,  and  of  the  Presi- 
dent, to  decide  upon  the  constitutionality  of  any  bill  or  resolu- 
tion, which  may  be  presented  to  them  for  passage  or  approval, 
as  it  is  of  the  Supreme  Judges  when  it  may  be  brought  before 
them  for  judicial  decision.  The  authority  of  the  Supreme  Court 
must  not,  therefore,  be  permitted  to  control  the  Congress  or  the 
Executive,  when  acting  in  thoir  legislative  capacities,  but  to 
have  only  such  influence  as  the  force  of  their  reasoning  may  de- 
serve." 

Mark  these  words,  and  let  them  sink  into  your 
minds.  "Each  public  officer,  who  takes  an.  oath  to 
support .  the  Constitution,  swears  that  he  will  support 
it  as  he  understands  it,  and  not  as  it  is  understood  by 
others."  Yes,  sir,  AS  HE  TTNDEESTANDS  IT,  and  not 
as  it  is  understood  by  others.  Does  any  Senator  here 
dissent  from  this  rule  ?  Does  the  Senator  from  Vir- 
ginia ?  Does  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  ? 
[Here  Mr.  Sumner  paused,  but  there  was  no  reply.] 
At  all  events,  I  accept  the  rule  as  just  and  reasonable  ; 
in  harmony,  too,  let  me  assert,  with  that  liberty  which 
scorns  the  dogma  of  passive  obedience,  and  asserts  the 
inestimable  right  of  private  judgment,  whether  in  re- 
ligion or  politics.  In  swearing  to  support  the  Consti- 
tution at  your  desk,  Mr.  President,  I  did  not  swear  to 
support  it  as  you  understand  it.  Oh,  no,  sir.  Or  as 


344  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

the  Senator  from  Virginia  understands  it.  Oh,  no,  sir. 
Or  as  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  understands  it, 
with  a  kennel  of  bloodhounds  ;  or,  at  least,  a  "  dog" 
in  it,  "  pawing  to  get  free  its  hinder  parts,"  in  pursuit 
of  a  slave.  No  such  thing.  Sir,  I  swore  to  support  the 
Constitution  as  I  understand  it;  nor  more,  nor  less. 

Now,  I  will  not  occupy  your  time,  nor  am  I  so  dis- 
posed at  this  moment,  nor  does  the.  occasion  require 
it,  by  entering  upon  any  minute  criticism  of  the  clause 
in  the  Constitution  touching  the  surrender  of  "  fugi- 
tives from  service."  A  few  words  only  are  needful. 
Assuming,  sir,  .in  the  face  of  commanding  rules  of 
interpretation,  all  leaning  towards  Freedom,  that  in  the 
evasive  language  of  this  clause,  paltering  in  a  double 
sense,  the  words  employed  can  be  judicially  regarded 
as  justly  applicable  to  fugitive  slaves,  which,  as  you 
ought  to  know,  sir,  is  often  most  strenuously  and  con- 
scientiously denied  —  thus  sponging  the  whole  clause 
out  of  existence,  except  as  a  provision  for  the  return 
of  persons  actually  bound  by  lawful  contract,  —  but  on 
which  I  now  express  no  opinion ;  assuming,  I  say,  this 
interpretation,  so  hostile  to  Freedom,  and  derogatory 
to  the  members  of  the  Federal  Convention,  who 
solemnly  declared  that"  they  would  not  yield  any 
sanction  to  Slavery,  or  admit  into  the  Constitution 
the  idea  of  property  in  man  ;  assuming,  I  repeat,  an 
interpretation  which  every  principle  of  the  common 
law,  claimed  by  our  fathers  as  their  birthright,  must 
disown  ;  admitting,  for  the  moment  only,  and  with 
shame,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has 
any  words,  which,  in  any  legal  intendment,  can  con- 
strain fugitive  slaves,  then  I  desire  to  say,  that,  as  I 
understand  the  Constitution,  this  clause  does  not  im- 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  345 

pose  upon  me,  as  a  Senator  or  citizen,  any  obligation 
to  take  part,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  the  surrender  of 
a  fugitive  slave. 

Sir,  as  a  Senator,  I  have  taken  at  your  desk  the  oath 
to  support  the  Constitution,  as  I  understand  it.  And 
understanding  it  as  I  do,  I  am  bound  by  that  oath, 
Mr.  President,  to  oppose  all  enactments  by  Congress 
on  the  subject  of  fugitive  slaves,  as  a  flagrant  viola- 
tion of  the  Constitution ;  especially  must  I  oppose  the 
last  act  as  a  tyrannical  usurpation,  kindred  in  character 
to  the  Stamp  Act,  which  our  fathers  indignantly  re- 
fused to  obey.  Here  my  duties,  under  the  oath  which 
I  have  taken  as  a  Senator,  end.  There  is  nothing 
beyond.  They  are  all  absorbed  in  the  constant,  inflex- 
ible, righteous  obligation  to  oppose  every  exercise  by 
Congress  of  any  power  over  the  subject.  In  no  re- 
spect, by  that  oath  can  I  be  constrained  to  duties  in 
other  capacities,  or  as  a  simple  citizen,  especially  when 
revolting  to  my  conscience.  Now,  in  this  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Constitution  I  may  be  wrong ;  others  may 
differ  from  me  ;  the  Senator  from  Virginia  may  differ 
from  me,  and  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  also  ; 
and  they  will,  each  and  all,  act  according  to  their 
respective  understandings.  For  myself^  I  shall  act 
according  to  mine.  On  this  explicit  statement  of  my 
constitutional  obligations,  I  stand,  as  upon  a  living 
rock,  and,  to  the  inquiry,  in  whatever  form  addressed 
to  my  personal  responsibility,  whether  I  would  aid, 
directly  or  indirectly,  in  reducing  or  surrendering  a 
fellow-man  to  bondage,  I  reply  again,  "  Is  thy  servant 
a  dog,  that  he  should  do  this  thing  ?  " 

And,  sir,  looking  round  upon  this  Senate,  I  might 
ask  fearlessly,  how  many  there  are  —  even  in  this 


346  DEFENCE   OF   MASSACHUSETTS. 

body  —  if,  indeed,  there  be  a  single  Senator,  who 
would  stoop  to  any  such  service  ?  Until  some  one 
rises  and  openly  confesses  his  willingness  to  become  a 
Slave-hunter,  I  will  not  believe  there  can  be  one. 
[Here  Mr.  Sumner  paused,  but  nobody  rose.]  And 
yet  honorable  and  chivalrous  Senators  have  rushed 
headlong  to  denounce  me  because  I  openly  declared 
my  repudiation  of  a  service  at  which  every  manly 
bosom  must  revolt.  "  Sire,  I  have  found  in  Bayonne 
brave  soldiers  and  good  citizens,  but  not  one  execu- 
tioner," was  the  noble  utterance  of  the  Governor  of 
that  place  to  Charles  IX.  of  France,  in  response  to  the 
royal  edict  for  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  ;  and 
such  a  spirit,  I  trust,  will  yet  animate  the  people  of 
this  country,  when  pressed  to  the  service  of  "  dogs  !  " 

To  that  other  question,  which  has  been  proposed, 
whether  Massachusetts,  by  State  laws,  will  carry  out 
the  offensive  clause  in  the  Constitution,  according  to 
the  understanding  of  the  venerable  Senator  from  South 
Carolina,  I  reply  that  Massachusetts,  at  all  times,  has 
been  ready  to  do  her  duty  under  the  Constitution,  as 
she  understands  it ;  and,  I  doubt  not,  will  ever  con- 
tinue of  this  mind.  More  than  this  I  cannot  say. 

In  quitting  this  topic,  I  cannot  forbear  to  remark 
that  the  assault  on  me  for  my  disclaimer  of  all  consti- 
tutional obligation,  resting  upon  me  as  a  Senator  or 
citizen,  to  aid  in  making  a  man  a  slave,  or  in  surren- 
dering him  to  Slavery,  comes  with  an  ill  grace  from  the 
veteran  Senator  from  Virginia,  a  State  which,  by  its  far- 
famed  resolutions  of  1798,  assumed  to  determine  its 
constitutional  obligations,  even  to  the  extent  of  openly 
declaring  two  different  Acts  of  Congress  null  and  void ; 
and  it  comes  also  with  an  ill  grace  from  the  venerable 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  347 

Senator  from  South  Carolina,  a  State  which,  in  latter 
days,  has  arrayed  itself  openly  against  the  Federal  au- 
thorities, and  which  threatens  nullification  as  often  as 
babies  cry. 

Surely  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  with  his 
silver-white  locks,  would  have  hesitated  to  lead  this 
assault  upon  me,  had  he  not,  for  the  moment,  been 
entirely  oblivious  of  the  history  of  the  State  which  he 
represents.  Not  many  years  have  passed  since  an  in- 
cident occurred  at  Charleston,  in  South  Carolina  —  not 
at  Boston,  in  Massachusetts  —  which  ought  to  be 
.  remembered.  The  postmaster  of  that  place,  acting 
under  a  controlling  Public  Opinion  there,  informed  the 
head  of  his  Department  at  Washington  that  he  had 
determined  to  suppress  all  Anti-slavery  publications, 
and  requested  instructions  for  the  future.  Thus,  in 
violation  of  the  laws  of  the  land,  the  very  mails  were 
rifled,  and  South  Carolina  smiled  approbation  of  the 
outrage.  But  this  is  not  all.  The  Postmaster  Gen- 
eral, Mr.  Kendall,  after  prudently  alleging  that,  as  he 
had  not  seen  the  papers  in  question,  he  could  not  give 
an  opinion  of  their  character,  proceeded  to  say,  that  he 
had  been  informed  that  they  were  incendiary,  inflam- 
matory and  insurrectionary,  and  then  announced  : 

"  By  no  act  or  direction  of  mine,  official  or  private,  could  I  be 
induced  to  aid  knowingly  in  giving  circulation  to  papers  of  this 
description,  directly  or  indirectly.  We  owe  an  obligation  to 
the  laws,  but  a  higher  one  to  the  communities  in  which  we  live  : 
and  if  the  former  be  perverted  to  destroy  the  latter,  it  is  patri- 
otism to  disregard  them.  Entertaining  these  views,  I  cannot 
sanction,  and  will  not  condemn,  the  step  you  have  taken." 

Such   was  the  approving  response  of  the  National 
Government  to   the  Postmaster  of  Charleston,  when, 


348  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

for  the  sake  of  Slavery,  and  without  any  constitutional 
scruple,  he  set  himself  against  an  acknowledged  law  of 
the  land ;  and  yet  the  venerable  Senator  from  South 
Carolina  now  presumes  to  denounce  me,  when,  for  the 
sake  of  Freedom,  and  in  the  honest  interpretation  of 
my  constitutional  obligations,  I  decline  an  offensive 
service. 

But  there  is  another  incident  in  the  history  of  South 
Carolina,  which  as  a  loyal  son  of  Massachusetts,  I 
cannot  forget,  and  which  rises  now  in  judgment  against 
the  venerable  Senator.  Massachusetts  had  commis- 
sioned a  distinguished  gentleman,  of  blameless  life  and 
eminent  professional  qualities,  who  served  with  honor 
in  the  other  House-  [Hon.  Samuel  Hoar],  to  reside  at 
Charleston  for  a  brief  period,  in  order  to  guard  the 
rights  of  her  free  colored  citizens,  assailed  on  arrival 
there  by  an  inhospitable  statute,  so  gross  in  its  provis- 
ions that  an  eminent  character  of  South  Carolina,  a 
Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  [Hon. 
William  Johnson,]  had  characterized  it  as  "  trampling 
on  the  Constitution,"  and  "  a  direct  attack  upon  the 
sovereignty  of  the  United  States."  Massachusetts  had 
read  in  the  Constitution  a  clause  closely  associated 
with  that  touching  "fugitives  from  service,"  to  the 
following  effect :  "  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be 
entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in 
the  several  States,"  and  supposed  that  this  would  yet 
be  recognized  by  South  Carolina.  But  she  was  mis- 
taken. Her  venerable  representative,  an  unarmed  old 
man,  with  hair  as  silver-white  almost  as  that  of  the 
Senator  before  me,  was  beset  in  Charleston  by  a  "  re- 
spectable "  mob,  prevented  from,  entering  upon  his 
duties,  and  driven  from  the  State ;  while  the  Legisla- 


DEFENCE  OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  349 

ture  stepped  in  to  sanction  this  shameless,  lawless  act, 
by  placing  on  the  statute  book  an  order  for  his  expul- 
sion. And  yet,  sir,  the  excitable  Senator  from  South 
Carolina  is  fired  by  the  fancied  delinquencies  of  Massa- 
chusetts towards  Slave-hunters,  and  also  by  my  own 
refusal  to  render  them  any  aid  or  comfort ;  he  shoots 
questions  in  volleys,  assumes  to  measure  our  duties  by 
his  understanding,  and  ejaculates  a  lecture  at  Massa- 
chusetts and  myself.  Sir,  before  that  venerable  Sena- 
tor again  ventures  thus,  let  him  return  to  his  own 
State,  seamed  all  over  with  the  scars  of  nullification, 
and  firct  lecture  there.  Ay,  sir,  let  him  look  into  his 
own  heart,  and  lecture  to  himself. 

But  enough  for  the  present  on  the  extent  of  my 
constitutional  obligations  to  become  a  Slave-hunter. 
There  are,  however,  yet  other  things  in  the  assault  of 
the  venerable  Senator,  which,  for  the  sake  of  truth,  in 
just  defence  of  Massachusetts,  and  in  honor  of  Freedom, 
shall  not  be  left  unanswered.  Alluding  to  those  days 
when  Massachusetts  was  illustrated  by  Otis,  Hancock, 
and  "  the  brace  of  Adamses  ;  "  when  Faneuil  Hall  sent 
forth  echoes  of  liberty  which  resounded  even  to  South 
Carolina,  and  the  very  stones  in  the  streets  of  Boston 
rose  in  mutiny  against  tyranny,  the  Senator  with  the 
silver- white  locks,  in  the  very  ecstasy  of  Slavery,  broke 
forth  in  the  ejaculation  that  Massachusetts  was  then 
"  slaveholding ;  "  and  he  presumed  to  hail  these  pa- 
triots as  representatives  of  "  hardy,  slaveholding  Mas- 
sachusetts." Sir,  I  repel  the  imputation.  It  is  true 
that  Massachusetts  was  "  hardy  ;  "  but  she  was  not,  in 
any  just  sense,  "  slaveholding."  And  had  she  been  so, 
she  could  not  have  been  "  hardy."  The  two  character- 
30 


350  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

istics  are  inconsistent  as  weakness  and  strength,  as 
sickness  and  health.  —  I  had  almost  said,  as  death  and 
life. 

The  Senator  opens  a  page,  which  I  would  willingly 
present.  Sir,  Slavery  never  flourished  in  Massachu- 
setts ;  nor  did  it  ever  prevail  there  at  any  time,  even  in 
early  Colonial  days,  to  such  a  degree  as  to  be  a  distinc- 
tive feature  in  her  powerful  civilization.  Her  few 
slaves  were  merely  for  a  term  of  years,  or  for  life.  If, 
in  point  of  fact,  their  issue  was  sometimes  held  in 
bondage,  it  was  never  by  sanction  of  any  statute  or 
law  of  Colony  or  Commonwealth.  Such  has  been  the 
solemn  judgment  of  her  Supreme  Court.*  In  all  her 
annals,  no  person  was  ever  born  a  slave  on  the  soil  of 
Massachusetts.  This,  of  itself,  is  a  response  to  the 
imputation  of  the  Senator. 

A  benign  and  brilliant  Act  of  her  Legislature,  as  far 
back  as  1646,  shows  her  sensibility  on  this  subject.  A 
Boston  ship  had  brought  home  two  negroes,  seized  on 
the  coast  of  Guinea.  Thus  spoke  Massachusetts : 

"  The  General  Court,  conceiving  themselves  bound  by  the  first 
opportunity  to  bear  witness  against  the  heinous  and  crying  sin 
of  man-stealing,  also  to  prescribe  such  timely  redress  for  what 
is  past,  and  such  a  law  for  the  future  as  may  sufficiently  deter 
all  those  belonging  to  us,  to  have  to  do  in  such  vile  and  most 
odious  conduct,  justly  ahhorred  of  all  good  and  just  men,  do 
order  that  the  negro  interpreter,  with  others  unlawfully  taken, 
be,  by  the  firot  opportunity,  at  the  charge  of  the  country,  for  the 
present,  sent  to  his  native  country  of  Guinea,  and  a  letter  with 
him  of  the  indignation  of  the  Court  thereabout  and  justice 
thereof." 

The  Colony  that  could  issue  this  noble  decree  was 
*  Lanesboro  v.  Westfield,  16  Mass.  74. 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  351 

inconsistent  with  itself,  when  it  allowed  its  rocky  face 
to  be  pressed  by  the  footsteps  of  a  single  slave.  But  a 
righteous  public  opinion  early  and  constantly  set  its 
face  against  Slavery.  As  early  as  1701,  a  vote  was 
entered  upon  the  records  of  Boston  to  the  following 
effect :  "  The  Representatives  are  desired  to  promote 
the  encouraging  the  bringing  of  white  servants,  and  to 
put  a  period  to  negroes  being  slaves."  Perhaps,  in  all 
history,  this  is  the  earliest  testimony  from  any  official 
body  against  Negro  Slavery,  and  I  thank  God  that  it 
came  from  Boston,  my  native  town.  In  1 705,  a  heavy 
duty  was  imposed  upon  every  negro  imported  into  the 
province;  in  1712,  the  importation  of  Indians  as  ser- 
vants or  slaves  was  strictly  forbidden  ;  but  the  general 
subject  of  Slavery  attracted  little  attention  till  the  begin- 
ning of  the  controversy,  which  ended  in  the  Revolu- 
tion, when  the  rights  of  the  blacks  were  blended  by 
all  true  patriots  with  those  of  the  whites.  Sparing  all 
unnecessary  details,  suffice  it  to  say,  that,  as  early  as 
1769,  one  of  the  courts  of  Massachusetts,  anticipating, 
by  several  years,  the  renowned  judgment  in  Somersett's 
case,  established  within  its  jurisdiction  the  principle  of 
emancipation  and,  under  its  touch  of  magic  power, 
changed  a  slave  into  a  freeman.  Similar  decisions 
followed  in  other  places.  In  1776,  the  whole  number 
of  blacks,  both  free  and  slave,  sprinkled  thinly  over 
"hardy"  Massachusetts,  Avas  five  thousand  two  hun- 
dred and  forty-nine,  being  to  the  whites  as  one  is  to 
sixty-five;  while  in  "  slaveholding "  South  Carolina 
the  number  of  negro  slaves,  at  that  time,  was  not  far 
from  one  hundred  thousand,  being  nearly  one  slave  for 
every  freeman,  thus  rendering  that  Colony  anything 
but  "hardy."  At  last,  in  1780,  even  before  the 


352  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

triumph  of  Yorktown  had  led  the  way  to  that  peace 
which  set  its  seal  upon  our  National  Independence, 
Massachusetts,  animated  by  the  struggles  of  the  Revo- 
lution, and  filled  by  the  sentiments  of  Freedom,  placed 
in  front  of  her  Bill  of  Rights  the  emphatic  words,  that 
"  all  men  are  born  free  and  equal,"  and  by  this  declar- 
ation exterminated  every  vestige  of  Slavery  within  her 
borders.  All  hail,  then,  to  Massachusetts,  the  just  and 
generous  Commonwealth  in  whose  behalf  I  have  the 
honor  to  speak. 

Thus,  sir,  does  the  venerable  Senator  err  when  he 
presumes  to  vouch  Massachusetts  for  Slavery,  and  to 
associate  this  odious  institution  with  the  names  of  her 
great  patriots. 

Mr.  ROCKWELL.  Will  my  honorable  colleague  allow 
me  to  send  to  the  Chair,  and  have  read  in  this  connec- 
tion with  his  present  remarks,  a  passage  from  Graham's 
History  of  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  SUAINER.  I  do  not  know  the  passage  to  which 
my  colleague  refers,  but  I  welcome  any  interruption 
from  him. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

"  Among  other  subjects  of  dispute  with  the  British  Govern- 
ment and  its  officers,  was  one  more  creditable  to  Massachusetts 
than  even  her  magnanimous  concern  for  the  liberty  of  her  citi- 
zens and  their  fellow-colonists.  Negro  Slavery  still  subsisted  in 
every  one  of  the  American  Provinces,  and  the  unhappy  victims 
of  this  yoke  were  rapidly  multiplied  by  the  progressive  extension 
of  the  slave-trade.  Georgia,  the  youngest  of  all  the  States,  con- 
tained already  fourteen  thousand  negroes  ;  and  in  the  course  of 
the  present  year  alone,  more  than  six  thousand  were  imported 
into  South  Carolina.  In  New  England,  the  number  of  Slaves 
was  very  insignificant,  and  their  treatment  so  mild  and  humane  as 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  353 

in  some  measure  to  veil  from  the  public  eye  the  iniquity  of  their 
bondage.  But  the  recent  discussions  with  regard  to  liberty  and 
the  rights  of  human  nature,  were  calculated  to  awaken  in  gener- 
ous minds  a  juster  impression  of  Negro  Slavery  ;  and  during 
the  latter  part  of  Governor  Bernard's  administration,  a  Bill  pro- 
hibitory of  all  traffic  in  negroes  was  passed  by  the  Massachusetts 
Assembly.  Bernard,  however,  in  conformity  with  his  instruc- 
tions from  the  Crown,  refused  to  affiim  this  law  ;  and  thus  op- 
posed himself  to  the  virtue  as  well  as  to  the  liberty  of  the  people 
whom  he  governed. 

"  On  three  subsequent  occasions,  laws  abolishing  the  slave- 
trade  were  passed  by  the  same  Assembly  during  Hutchinson'a 
administration  ;  but  all  were,  in  like  manner,  negatived  by  the 
Governor.  And  yet  it  was  at  this  very  period,  when  Britain 
permitted  her  merchants  annually  to  make  slaves  of  more  than 
fifty  thousand  men,  arid  refused  to  permit  her  Colonies  to  decline 
a  participation  in  this  injustice,  that  her  orators,  poets  and 
statesmen,  loudly  celebrate  the  generosity  of  English  virtue,  in 
suffering  no  slaves  to  exist  on  English  ground,  and  the  transcend- 
ent equity  of  her  judicial  tribunals  in  liberating  one  negro  who 
had  been  carried  there.  Though  Massachusetts  was  thus  pre- 
vented from  abolishing  the  slave-trade,  the  relative  discussions 
that  took  place  were  by  no  means  unproductive  of  good.  A  great 
amelioration  became  visible  in  the  condition  of  all  the  negroes  in 
the  Province  ;  and  most  of  the  proprietors  gave  liberty  to  their 
slaves.  This  just  action  —  for  such,  and  such  only,  it  deserves 
to  be  termed  —  has  obtained  hitherto  scarcely  any  notice  from 
mankind,  while  the  subsequent  and  similar  conduct  of  the 
Quakers  in  Pennsylvania  has  been  celebrated  with  warmth  ard 
general  encomium.  So  capricious  is  the  distribution  of  fame, 
and  so  much  advantage  does  the  reputation  of  virtue  derive  from 
alliance  with  sectarian  spirit  and  interest." 

Mr.  SUMXEB.  I  am  obliged  to  my  colleague.  The 
extract  is  in  substantial  conformity  with  clear  historic 
truth,  which  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  in  one 
of  his  oratorical  effluxes,  has  impeached.  But  the 
venerable  Senator  errs  yet  more,  if  possible,  when  he 
attributes  to  "  slaveholding "  communities  a  leading 
30* 


354  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

part  in  those  contributions  of  arms  and  treasure  by 
which  independence  was  secured.  Here  are  his  exact 
words,  as  I  find  them  in  the  Globe,  revised  by  himself: 

"  Sir,  when  blood  was  shed  upon  the  plains  of  Lexington  and 
Concord,  in  an  issue  made  by  Boston,  to  whom  was  an  appeal 
made,  and  from  whom  was  it  answered  ?  The  answer  is  found 
in  the  acts  of  slaveholding  States  —  animis  opibusque  parati. 
Yes,  sir,  the  independence  of  America,  to  maintain  republican 
liberty,  was  won  by  the  arms  and  treasure,  by  the  patriotism  and 
$-:od faith  of  slaveholding  communities." 

Mark  the  language,  sir,  as  emphasized  by  himself. 
Surely,  the  Senator  with  his  silver-white  locks,  all  fresh 
from  the  outrage  of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  cannot  stand 
here  and  proclaim  "  the  good  faith  of  slaveholding 
communities,"  except  in  irony.  Yes,  sir,  in  irony. 
And  let  me  add,  that  when  this  Senator  presumes  to 
say  that  American  Independence  "  was  won  by  the 
arms  and  treasure  of  slaveholding  communities,"  he 
speaks  either  in  irony  or  in  ignorance. 

The  question  which  the  venerable  Senator  from  South 
Carolina  here  opens,  by  his  vaunt,  I  have  no  desire  to 
discuss  ;  but,  since  it  is  presented,  I  confront  it  at 
once.  This  is  not  the  first  time,  during  my  brief  ser- 
vice here,  that  this  Senator  has  sought  on  this  floor  to 
provoke  a  comparison  between  slaveholding  commu- 
nities and  the  free  States. 

Mr.  BUTLER  (from  his  seat).  You  cannot  quote  a 
single  instance  in  which  I  have  done  it.  I  have  always 
said  I  thought  it  was  in  bad  taste,  and  I  have  never 
attempted  it. 

Mr.  SUMNEB.  I  beg  the  Senator's  pardon.  I  always 
listen  to  him,  and  I  know  wherof  I  affirm.  He  has 
profusely  dealt  in  it.  I  allude  now  only  to  a  single 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  355 

'  ccasion.  In  Ms  speech  on  the  Nebraska  Bill,  running 
through  two  days,  it  was  one  of  his  commonplaces. 
In  that  he  openly  presented  a  contrast  between  the 
free  States  and  "  slaveholding  communities,"  in  certain 
essential  features  of  civilization,  and  directed  shafts  at 
Massachusetts,  which  called  to  his  feet  my  distin- 
guished colleague  at  that  time  [Mr.  Everett],  and 
which  more  than  once  compelled  me  to  take  the  floor. 
And  now,  sir,  the  venerable  Senator  not  rising  from 
his  seat,  and  standing  openly  before  the  Senate,  assumes 
to  deny  that  he  has  dealt  in  such  comparisons. 

Mr.  BUTLER.     Will  the  Senator  allow  me  ? 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Certainly ;  I  yield  the  floor  to  the 
Senator. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  Whenever  that  speech  is  read  —  and 
I  wish  the  Senator  had  read  it  before  he  commented 
on  it  with  a  good  deal  of  rhetorical  enthusiasm  —  it 
will  be  found  that  I  was  particular  not  to  wound  the 
feelings  of  the  Northern  people  who  were  sympathizing 
with  us  in  the  great  movement  to  remove  odious  dis- 
tinctions. I  was  careful  to  say  nothing  that  would 
provoke  invidious  comparisons  ;  and  when  that  speech 
is  read,  notwithstanding  the  vehement  assertion  of  the 
honorable  Senator,  he  will  find  that  when  I  quoted  the 
laws  of  Massachusetts,  particularly  one  Act  which  I 
termed  the  totics  quoties  Act,  by  which  every  negro  was 
whipped  every  time  he  came  into  Massachusetts,  I 
quoted  them  with  a  view  to  show,  not  a  contrast 
between  South  Carolina  and  Massachusetts,  but  to 
show  that,  in  the  whole  of  this  country,  from  the  be- 
ginning to  this  time  —  even  in  my  own  State,  I  made 
no  exception  —  public  opinion  had  undergone  a  change, 
and  that  it  had  undergone  the  same  change  in  Massa- 


356  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

chusetts,  for  at  one  time  they  did  not  regard  this  insti- 
tution of  Slavery  with  the  same  odium  that  they  do  at 
this  time.  That  was  the  purpose ;  and  I  challenge  the 
Senator  as  an  orator  of  fairness  to  look  at  it,  and  see 
if  it  is  not  so. 

Mr.  SUMXER.     Has  the  Senator  done? 

Mr.  BUTLER.  I  may  not  be  done  presently ;  but 
that  is  the  purport  of  that  speech. 

Mr.  SUMXER.  Will  the  Senator  refer  to  his  own 
speech  ?  He  now  admits  that,  under  the  guise  of  an 
argument,  he  did  draw  attention  to  what  he  evidently 
regarded  an  odious  law  of  Massachusetts.  And,  sir, 
I  did  not  forget  that,  in  doing  this,  there  was,  at  the 
time,  an  apology  which  ill-concealed  the  sting.  But 
let  that  pass.  The  Senator  is  strangely  oblivious  of 
the  statistical  contrasts,  which  he  borrowed  from  the 
speech  of  a  member  of  the  other  House,  and  which,  at 
his  request,  were  read  by  a  Senator  before  him  on  this 
floor.  The  Senator,  too,  is  strangely  oblivious  of  yet 
another  imputation,  which,  at  the  very  close  of  his 
speech,  he  shot  as  a  Parthian  arrow  at  Massachusetts. 
It  is  he,  then,  who  is  the  offender ;  and  no  hardihood 
of  denial  can  extricate  him.  For  myself,  sir,  I  under- 
stand the  sensibilities  of  Senators  from  slaveholding 
communities,  and  would  not  wound  them  by  a  super- 
fluous word.  Of  Slavery  I  speak  strongly,  as  I  must ; 
but  thus  far,  even  at  the  expense  of  my  argument,  I 
have  avoided  the  contrasts,  founded  on  details  of 
figures  and  facts,  which  are  so  obvious  between  the 
free  States  and  "  slaveholding  communities ;  "  especially 
have  I  shunned  all  allusion  to  South  Carolina.  But 
the  venerable  Senator,  to  whose  discretion  that  State 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  357 

has  intrusted  its  interests  here,  will  not  allow  me  to 
be  still. 

God  forbid  that  I  should  do  injustice  to  South  Caro- 
lina. I  know  well  the  gallantry  of  many  of  her  sons. 
I  know  the  response  which  she  made  to  the  appeal  of 
Boston  for  union  against  the  Stamp  Act  —  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Act  of  that  day  —  by  the  pen  of  Christopher 
Gadsden.  And  I  remember  with  sorrow  that  this 
patriot  was  obliged  to  confess,  at  the  time,  her  "  weak- 
ness in  having  such  a  number  of  slaves,"  though  it  is 
to  his  credit  that  he  recognized  Slavery  as  a  "  crime."  * 
I  have  no  pleasure  in  dwelling  on  the  humiliations  of 
South  Carolina ;  I  do  not  desire  to  expose  her  sores ; 
I  would  not  lay  bare  her  nakedness.  But  the  Senator, 
in  his  vaunt  for  "  slaveholding  communities,"  has  made 
a  claim  for  Slavery  which  is  so  inconsistent  with  his- 
tory, and  so  derogatory  to  Freedom,  that  I  cannot  allow 
it  to  pass  unanswered. 

This,  sir,  is  not  the  first  time,  even  during  my  little 
experience  here,  that  the  same  claim  has  been  made  on 
this  floor ;  and  this  seems  more  astonishing,  because 
the  archives  of  the  country  furnish  such  ample  and 
undoubted  materials  for  its  refutation.  The  question 
of  the  comparative  contributions  of  men  by  different 
States  and  sections  of  the  country  in  the  war  of  the 
Revolution,  was  brought  forward  as  early  as  1790,  in 
the  first  Congress  under  the  Constitution,  in  the  ani- 
mated and  protracted  debate  on  the  assumption  of 
State  debts  by  the  Union.  On  this  occasion  Fisher 
Ames,  a  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  memorable 
for  his  classic  eloquence,  moved  a  call  upon  the  War 

*  Bancroft's  History  of  United  States,  vol.  v.  p.  426. 


S58 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 


Department  for  the  number  of  men  furnished  by  each 
State  to  the  Revolutionary  armies.  This  motion, 
though  vehemently  opposed,  was  carried  by  a  small 
majority.  Shortly  afterwards,  the  answer  to  the  call 
was  received  from  the  Department,  at  that  time  under 
the  charge  of  General  Knox.  This  answer,  which  is 
one  of  the  documents  of  our  history,  places  beyond 
cavil  or  criticism  the  exact  contributions  in  arms  of 
each  State.  Here  it  is  —  copied  from  the  first  volume 
of  the  American  Archives. 

Statement  of  the  number  of  troops  and  militia  furnished  by  the 
teveral  States,  for  the  support  of  the  Revolutionary  war,  from 
1775  to  1783,  inclusive. 


NORTHERN  STATES. 
New  Hampshire 
Massachusetts 
Rhode  Island     . 
Connecticut        , '  ,-,, 
New  York 
Pennsylvania         . 
New  Jersey 

Total 

SOUTHERN  STATES. 
Delaware  .  .' 
Maryland  .  . 

Virginia 

North  Carolina          . 
South  Carolina 
Georgia     . 

Total 


llf 

Number  of 
militia. 

I'otal  militia 
:  continental 
troops. 

Conjectural 
estimate  of 
militia. 

12,496 

2,093 

14,598 

7,300 

67,937 

15,155 

83,092 

9,500 

5,908 

4,284 

10,192 

1,500 

32,039 

7,792 

39,831 

3,000 

17,781 

3,312 

21,093 

8,750 

25,608 

7,357 

32,965 

2,000 

10,727 

6,055 

16,782 

2,500 

172,496 

46,048 

218,553 

30,950 

2,387 

876 

2,763 

1,000 

13,912 

5,464 

19,376 

4,000 

26,672 

4,163 

30,835 

21,880 

7,263 

2,716 

9,969 

12,000 

5,508 



5,508 

28,000 

2,679 



2,679 

9,930 

58,421     12,719    71,130  76,810 


It  should  be  understood  that,  at  this  time,  there  was 
but  little  diiferencG  in  numbers  between  the  population 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  359 

of  the  Southern  States  and  that  of  the  Northern  States. 
By  the  census  of  1790,  the  Southern  had  a  popula- 
tion of  1,956,354  ;  the  Northern  had  a  population  of 
1,968,455.  But,  notwithstanding  this  comparative 
equality  of  population  in  the  two  sections,  the  North 
furnished  vastly  more  men  than  the  South. 

Of  continental  troops,  the  Southern  States  furnished 
58,421  ;  the  Northern  furnished  172,496  ;  making 
about  three  men  furnished  to  the  continental  army  by 
the  Northern  States  to  one  from  the  Southern. 

Of  militia,  whose  services  are  authenticated  by  the 
War  Office,  the  Southern  States  furnished  12,719 ;  the 
Northern  furnished  46,048  ;  making  nearly  four  men 
furnished  to  the  militia  by  the  Northern  States  to  one 
from  the  Southern. 

Of  militia,  whose  services  were  not  authenticated  by 
the  War  Office,  but  are  set  down  in  the  return  as 
conjectural  only,  we  have  76,810  furnished  by  the 
Southern  States  and  30,950  furnished  by  the  North- 
ern ;  making,  under  this  head,  more  than  two  men 
furnished  by  the  Southern  to  one  from  the  Northern. 
The  chief  services  of  the  Southern  States  —  for  which 
the  venerable  Senator  now  claims  so  much  —  it  will 
be  observed  with  a  smile,  were  conjectural  only ! 

Looking,  however,  at  the  sum  total  of  continental 
troops,  authenticated  militia  and  conjectural  militia, 
we  have  147,940  furnished  by  the  Southern  States, 
while  249,503  were  furnished  by  the  Northern ; 
making  100,000  men  furnished  to  the  war  by  the 
Northern  more  than  the  Southern. 

But  the  disparity  swells  when  we  directly  compare 
South  Carolina  and  Massachusetts.  Of  continental 
troops,  and  authenticated  militia,  and  conjectuial  mill- 


360  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

tia,  South  Carolina  furnished  33,508,  while  Massachu- 
setts furnished  92,592  ;  making  in  the  latter  sum 
nearly  three  men  for  one  furnished  by  South  Carolina. 
Look,  however,  at  the  continental  troops  and  the 
authenticated  militia  furnished  by  the  two  States,  and 
here  you  will  find  only  5,508  furnished  by  South 
Carolina,  while  83,092  were  furnished  by  Massachu- 
setts —  being  sixteen  times  more  than  by  South  Caro- 
lina, and  much  more  than  by  all  the  Southern  States 
together.  Here  are  facts  and  figures  of  which  the 
Senator  ought  not  to  be  ignorant. 

Did  the  occasion  require,  I  might  go  further,  and 
minutely  portray  the  imbecility  of  the  Southern  States, 
and  particularly  of  South  Carolina,  in  the  war  of  the 
Revolution,  as  compared  with  the  Northern  States. 
This  is  a  sad  chapter  of  history,  upon  which  I  unwill- 
ingly dwell.  Faithful  annals  record  that,  as  early  as 
1778,  the  six  South  Carolina  regiments,  composing, 
with  the  Georgia  regiment,  the  regular  force  of  the 
Southern  Department,  did  not,  in  the  whole,  muster 
above  eight  hundred  men ;  nor  was  it  possible  to 
fill  up  their  ranks.  During  the  succeeding  year,  the 
Governor  of  South  Carolina,  pressed  by  the  British 
forces,  offered  to  stipulate  the  neutrality  of  his  State 
during  the  war,  leaving  it  to  be  decided  at  the  peace 
to  whom  it  should  belong  —  a  premonitory  symptom 
of  the  secession  proposed  in  our  own  day !  At  last, 
after  the  fatal  field  of  Camden,  no  organized  American 
force  was  left  in  this  region.  The  three  Southern 
States  —  animis  opibusque  parati,  according  to  the 
vaunt  of  the  Senator  —  had  not  a  single  battalion  in 
the  field !  During  all  this  period  the  men  of  Massa- 
chusetts were  serving  their  country,  not  at  home,  but 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.       *  361 

away  from  their  own  borders  ;  for,  from  the  time  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  Massachusetts  never  saw 
the  smoke  of  an  enemy's  camp. 

At  last,  by  the  military  genius  and  remarkable  ex- 
ertions of  General  Greene,  a  Northern  man,  who 
assumed  the  command  of  the  Southern  army,  South 
Carolina  was  rescued  from  the  British  power.  But 
the  trials  of  this  successful  leader  reveal,  in  a  striking 
manner,  the  weakness  of  the  "  slaveholding "  State 
which  he  saved.  Some  of  these  are  graphically  pre- 
sented in  his  letters.  Writing  to  Governor  Reed, 
of  Pennsylvania,  under  date  of  3d  May,  1781,  he 
says  :  — 

"  Those  -whose  true  interest  it  was  to  have  informed  Congress 
and  the  people  to  the  northward  of  the  real  state  of  things,  have 
joined  in  the  deception,  and  magnified  the  strength  and  re- 
sources of  this  country  infinitely  above  their  ability.  Many  of 
those,  who  adhere  to  our  party,  are  so  fond  of  pleasure,  that 
they  cannot  think  of  making  the  necessary  sacrifices  to  support 
the  Revolution.  There  are  many  good  and  virtuous  people  to 
the  southward ;  but  they  cannot  animate  the  inhabitants  in  gen- 
eral, as  you  can  to  the  northward." — Gordon's  History  of 
American  Revolution,  vol.  iv.  p.  87. 

Writing  to  Colonel  Davies,  under  date  of  23d  May, 
1781,  he  exposes  the  actual  condition  of  the  coun- 
try :  — 

"  The  animosity  between  the  Whigs  and  Tories  of  this  State 
renders  their  situation  truly  deplorable.  There  is  not  a  day 
passes  but  there  are  more  or  less  who  fall  a  sacrifice  to  this 
savage  disposition.  The  Whigs  seem  determined  to  extirpate  the 
Tories,  and  the  Tories  the  Whigs.  Some  thousands  have  fallen 
in  this  way  in  this  quarter,  and  the  evil  rages  with  more  violence 
than  ever.  If  a  stop  cannot  be  soon  put  to  these  massacres,  the 
country  will  be  depopulated  in  a  few  months  more,  as  neither 
Whig  nor  Tory  can  live." 
31 


362  DEFENCE    OP    MASSACHUSETTS. 

To  Lafayette,  General  Greene,  under  date  of  29th 
December,  1780,  describes  the  weakness  of  his  troops: 

"It  is  now  within  a  few  days  of  the  time  you  mentioned  of 
being  with  me.  Were  you  to  arrive,  you  would  find  a  few 
ragged,  half-starved  troops  in  the  wilderness,  destitute  of  every- 
thing necessary  for  either  the  comfort  or  convenience  of  soldiers." 
..."  The  country  is  almost  laid  waste,  and  the  inhabitants 
plunder  one  another  with  little  less  than  savage  fury.  We  live 
from  hand  to  mouth,  and  have  nothing  to  subsist  on  but  what 
we  collect  with  armed  parties.  In  this  situation,  I  believe  you 
will  agree  with  me,  there  is  nothing  inviting  this  way,  especially 
when  I  assure  you  our  whole  force  fit  for  duty,  that  are  properly 
clothed  and  properly  equipped,  does  not  amount  to  eight  hundred 
men."  —  Johnson's  Life  of  Greene,  vol.  i.  p.  340. 

Writing  to  Mr.  Varnum,  a  member  of  Congress,  he 
says :  — 

"  There  is  a  great  spirit  of  enterprise  prevailing  among  the 
militia  of  these  Southern  States,  especially  with  the  volunteers. 
But  their  mode  of  going  to  war  is  so  destructive,  that  it  is  the 
greatest  folly  in  the  world  to  trust  the  liberties  of  a  people  to 
such  a  precarious  defence."  —  Johnson's  Life  of  Greene,  vol.  i. 
p.  397. 

Nothing  can  be  more  authentic  or  complete  than 
this  testimony.  Here,  also,  is  what  is  said  by  David 
Ramsay,  an  estimable  citizen  of  South  Carolina,  in  his 
History  of  the  Revolution  in  that  State,  published  in 
1785,  only  a  short  time  after  the  scenes  which  he  de- 
scribes :  — 

"  While  the  American  soldiers  lay  encamped  (in  the  low  coun- 
try near  Charleston),  their  tattered  rags  were  so  completely 
worn  out,  that  seven  hundred  of  them  were  as  naked  as  they 
were  born,  excepting  a  small  strip  of  cloth  about  their  waists, 
and  they  were  nearly  as  destitute  of  meat  as  of  clothing."  — 
voL  ii.  p.  268. 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  363 

The  military  weakness  of  this  "  slaveholding  com- 
munity "  is  too  apparent.  Learn  now  its  occasion ; 
and  then  join  with  me  in  amazement  that  a  Senator 
from  South  Carolina  should  attribute  our  independence 
to  anything  "  slaveholding."  The  records  of  the  coun- 
try, and  various  voices,  all  disown  his  brag  for  Slavery. 
The  State  of  South  Carolina,  by  authentic  history, 
disowns  it.  Listen,  if  you  please,  to  peculiar  and 
decisive  testimony,  under  date  of  29th  March,  1779, 
from  the  Secret  Journal  of  the  Continental  Con- 
gress :  — 

"  The  Committee  appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  Southern  States,  and  the  ways  and  means  for 
their  safety  and  defence,  report,  that  the  State  of  South  Carolina 
(as  represented  by  the  Delegates  of  the  said  State,  and  by  Mr. 
Huger,  who  has  come  here  at  the  request  of  the  Governor  of  the 
said  State,  on  purpose  to  explain  the  circumstances  thereof)  is 
UNABLE  to  make  any  effectual  efforts  with  militia,  by  reason  of 
the  great  proportion  of  citizens  necessary  to  remain  at  home,  to 
prevent  insurrection  among  the  negroes,  and  to  prevent  the  de- 
sertion of  them  to  the  enemy.  That  the  state  of  the  country,  and 
the  great  number  of  these  people  among  them,  expose  the  inhabi- 
tants to  great  danger,  from  the  endeavors  of  the  enemy  to  excite 
them  to  revolt  or  desert."  —  Vol.  i.  p.  105. 

Here  is  South  Carolina  secretly  disclosing  her  mili- 
tary weakness,  and  its  ignoble  occasion  ;  thus  repudi- 
ating, in  advance,  the  vaunt  of  her  Senator,  who  finds 
strength  and  gratulation  in  Slavery  rather  than  in 
Freedom.  It  was  during  the  war  that  she  thus  shrived 
herself,  on  bended  knees,  in  the  confessional  of  the 
Continental  Congress.  But  the  same  ignominious 
confession  was  made,  some  time  after  the  war,  in 
open  debate,  on  the  floor  of  Congress,  by  Mr.  Burke, 
a  Representative  from  South  Carolina :  — 


364  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

"  There  is  not  a  gentleman  on  the  floor  who  is  a  stranger  to 
the  feeble  situation  of  our  State,  when  we  entered  into  the  war 
to  oppose  the  British  power.  We  were  not  only  without  money, 
without  an  army  or  military  stores,  but  we  were  few  in  number, 
and  likely  to  be  entangled  with  our  domestics,  in  case  the  enemy 
invaded  us."  —  Annals  of  Congress,  1789,  1791,  vol.  ii  p. 
1484. 

Similar  testimony  to  the  weakness  engendered  by 
Slavery  was  also  borne  by  Mr.  Madison,  in  open  de- 
bate in  Congress  :  — 

"  Every  addition  they  (Georgia  and  South  Carolina)  receive 
to  their  number  of  slaves,  tends  to  weaken  them,  and  render 
them  less  capable  of  self-defence."  —  Annals  of  Congress,  vol.  i. 
p.  340. 

The  historian  of  South  Carolina,  Dr.  Ramsay,  a 
contemporary  observer  of  the  very  scenes  which  he 
describes,  also  exposes  this  weakness  :  — 

"  The  forces  under  the  command  of  General  Provost  marched 
through  the  richest  settlements  of  the  State,  where  are  the  fewest 
white  inhabitants  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  slaves.  The 
hapless  Africans,  allured  with  the  hope  of  Freedom,  forsook 
their  owners,  and  repaired  in  great  numbers  to  the  royal  army. 
They  endeavored  to  recommend  themselves  to  their  new  masters 
by  discovering  where  their  owners  had  concealed  their  property, 
and  were  assisting  in  carrying  it  oft"  —  History  of  South  Caro- 
lina, vol.  i.  p.  312. 

And  the  same  candid  historian,  describing  the  inva- 
sion of  the  next  year,  says  :  — 

"The  slaves  a  second  time  flocked  to  the  British  army."  — 
Vol.  i.  p.  336. 

And  at  a  still  later  day,  Mr.  Justice  Johnson,  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  a  citizen  of 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  365 

South  Carolina,  in  his  elaborate  Life  of  General  Greene, 
speaking  of  negro  slaves,  makes  the  same  unhappy 
admission.  He  says  :  — 

"  But  the  number  dispersed  through  these  (Southern)  States 
was  very  great  ;  so  great,  as  to  render  it  impossible  for  the 
citizens  to  muster  freemen  enough  to  withstand  the  pressure  of 
the  British  arms."  —  Vol.  ii.  p.  472. 

Surely,  sir,  this  is  enough,  and  more.  Thus,  from 
authentic  documents  —  including  the  very  muster-rolls 
of  the  Revolution  —  we  learn  the  small  contributions 
of  men  and  the  military  weakness  of  the  Southern 
States,  particularly  of  South  Carolina,  as  compared 
with  the  Northern  States  ;  and  from  the  very  lips  of 
South  Carolina,  on  four  different  occasions,  speaking 
by  a  Committee ;  by  one  of  her  representatives  in  Con- 
gress ;  by  her  historian  ;  and  by  an  eminent  citizen, 
we  have  the  confession  not  only  of  weakness,  but  that 
this  weakness  was  caused  by  Slavery.  And  yet,  in 
the  face  of  this  cumulative  and  unimpeachable  testi- 
mony, we  are  called  to  listen,  in  the  American  Senate, 
to  a  high-flying  boast,  from  a  venerable  Senator,  that 
American  Independence  was  achieved  by  the  arms  and 
treasure  of  "  slaveholding  communities  ;  "  an  assump- 
tion, baseless  as  the  fabric  of  a  vision,  in  any  way  it 
may  be  interpreted  ;  whether  as  meaning  baldly  that 
independence  was  achieved  by  those  Southern  States, 
which  were  the  peculiar  home  of  Slavery,  or  that  it 
was  achieved  by  any  strength  or  influence  which  came 
from  that  noxious  source.  Sir,  I  speak  here  for  a 
Commonwealth  of  just  renown,  but  I  speak  also  for 
a  cause  which  is  more  than  any  Commonwealth,  even 
that  which  I  represent ;  and  I  cannot  allow  the  Sena- 
31* 


366  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

tor,  with  his  silver-white  locks,  to  discredit  either. 
Not  by  Slavery,  but  in  spite  of  it,  was  independence 
achieved.  Not  because,  but  notwithstanding,  there 
were  "  slaveholding  communities,"  did  triumph  de- 
scend upon  our  arms.  It  was  the  inspiration  of  Liberty 
Universal  that  conducted  us  through  the  Red  Sea  of 
the  Revolution,  as  it  had  already  given  to  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  its  mighty  tone,  resounding 
through  the  ages.  "  Let  it  be  remembered,"  said  the 
nation,  speaking  by  the  voice  of  the  Continental  Con- 
gress, at  the  close  of  the  war,  "  that  it  has  ever  been 
the  pride  and  boast  of  America,  that  the  rights  for 
which  she  has  contended  WERE  THE  EIGHTS  OF 
HUMAN  NATURE  !"  Yes,  sir,  in  this  behalf,  and  by 
this  sign,  we  conquered. 

Such,  sir,  is  my  answer  on  this  head  to  the  Senator 
from  South  Carolina.  If  the  work  which  I  undertook 
has  been  done  thoroughly,  he  must  not  blame  me. 
Whatever  I  undertake,  I  am  apt  to  do  thoroughly. 
But  while  thus  repelling  the  insinuations  against  Mas- 
sachusetts, and  the  assumptions  for  Slavery,  I  would 
not  unnecessarily  touch  the  sensibilities  of  that  Sena- 
tor, or  of  the  State  which  he  represents.  I  cannot 
forget  that,  amidst  all  diversities  of  opinion,  we  are 
bound  together  by  the  ties  of  a  common  country  — 
that  Massachusetts  and  South  Carolina  are  sister  States, 
and  that  the  concord  of  sisters  ought  to  prevail  between 
them ;  but  I  am  constrained  to  declare,  that  through- 
out this  debate  I  have  sought  in  vain  any  token  of  that 
just  spirit  which,  within  the  sphere  of  its  influence,  is 
calculated  to  promote  the  concord  of  States  or  of  indi- 
viduals 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  367 

And  now,  for  the  present,  I  part  with  the  venerable 
Senator  from  South  Carolina.  In  pursuing  his  incon- 
sistencies, and  exposing  them,  to  judgment,  I  had 
almost  forgotten  his  associate  leader  in  the  wanton 
and  personal  assault  to  which  I  have  been  exposed  — 
I  mean  the  veteran  Senator  from  Virginia  [Mr. 
Mason],  who  is  now  directly  in  my  eye.  With  im- 
perious look,  and  in  the  style  of  Sir  Forcible  Feeble, 
that  Senator  has  undertaken  to  call  in  question  my 
statement  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill  denied  the  writ 
of  Habeas  Corpus  ;  and,  in  doing  this,  he  has  assumed 
a  superiority  for  himself  which,  permit  me  to  tell  him 
now  in  this  presence,  nothing  in  him  can  sanction. 
Sir,  I  claim  little  for  myself;  but  I  shrink  in  no 
respect  from  any  comparison  with  that  Senator,  veteran, 
though  he  be.  Sitting  near  him,  as  has  been  my  for- 
tune since  I  have  been  on  this  floor,  I  have  come  to 
know  something  of  his  conversation,  something  of  his 
manners,  something  of  his  attainments,  something  of 
his  abilities,  something  of  his  character  —  ay,  sir,  and 
something  of  his  associations  ;  and,  while  I  would 
not  undertake  to  disparage  him  in  any  of  these  respects, 
yet  I  feel  that  I  do  not  exalt  myself  unduly  —  that  I 
do  not  claim  too  much  for  the  position  which  I  hold, 
or  the  name  which  I  have  established  —  when  I 
openly  declare  that,  as  a  Senator  of  Massachusetts, 
and  as  a  man,  I  place  myself  at  every  point  in  unhesi- 
tating comparison  with  that  honorable  assailant.  And 
to  his  peremptory  assertion  that  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Bill  does  not  deny  the  Habeas  Corpus,  I  oppose  my 
assertion,  as  peremptory  as  his  own,  that  it  does,  and 
there  I  leave  that  question. 

Mr.  President,  I  welcome  the  sensibility  which  the 


368  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

Senator  from  Virginia  displays  at  the  exposure  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Bill  in  its  true  character.  He  is  the 
author  of  that  enormity.  From  his  brain  came  forth 
the  soulless  monster.  He  is,  therefore,  its  natural 
guardian.  The  Senator  is,  I  believe,  a  lawyer.  And 
now,  since  at  last  he  has  shown  a  parental  solicitude 
to  shield  his  offspring,  he  must  do  more  than  vainly 
parry  the  objection,  that  it  denies  the  great  writ  of 
Habeas  Corpus.  It  is  true,  sir,  if  anything  but  Slavery 
were  in  question,  such  an  objection,  if  merely  plausible, 
would  be  fatal ;  but  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the 
partisans  of  an  institution  founded  on  a  denial  of  human 
rights,  can  appreciate  the  proper  efficacy  of  that  writ 
of  Freedom.  Sir,  I  challenge  the  Senator  to  defend 
his  progeny  ;  not  by  assertion,  but  by  reason.  Let 
him  rally  all  the  ability,  learning  and  subtlety,  which 
he  can  command,  and  undertake  the  impossible  work. 
Let  him  answer  this  objection.  The  Constitution, 
by  an  amendment  which  Samuel  Adams  hailed  as  a 
protection  against  the  usurpations  of  the  National 
Government,  and  which  Jefferson  asserted  was  our 
"  foundation  corner-stone,"  has  solemnly  declared  that 
"  the  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by 
the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States, 
are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the 
people."  Stronger  words  could  not  be  employed  to 
limit  the  powers  under  the  Constitution,  and  to  pro- 
tect the  people  from  all  assumptions  of  the  National 
Government,  particularly  in  derogation  of  Freedom. 
By  the  Virginia  resolutions  of  1798,  which  the  Senator 
is  reputed  to  accept,  this  limitation  of  the  powers  of 
the  National  Government  is  recognized  and  enforced. 
The  Senator  himself  is  understood,  on  all  questions 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  369 

not  affecting  the  claims  of  Slavery,  to  espouse  this 
rule  in  its  utmost  strictness.  Let  him  now  indicate, 
if  he  can,  any  article,  clause,  phrase,  or  word,  in  the 
Constitution,  which  gives  to  Congress  any  power  to 
establish  a  "  uniform  law  throughout  the  United 
States  "  on  the  subject  of  fugitive  slaves.  Let  him 
now  show,  if  he  can,  from  the  records  of  the  Federal 
Convention,  one  jot  of  evidence  inclining  to  any  such 
power.  Whatever  may  be  its  interpretation  in  other 
respects,  the  clause  on  which  this  Bill  purports  to  be 
•founded  gives  no  such  power.  Sir,  nothing  can  come 
out  of  nothing,  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill  is,  therefore, 
without  any  source  or  origin  in  the  Constitution.  It 
is  an  open  and  unmitigated  usurpation. 

And,  sir,  when  the  veteran  Senator  of  Virginia  has 
answered  this  objection  :  when  he  has  been  able  to 
find  in  the  Constitution  a  power  which  is  not  to  be 
found,  and  to  make  us  see  what  is  not  to  be  seen,  then 
let  him  answer  another  objection.  The  Constitution 
has  secured  the  inestimable  right  of  Trial  by  Jury  in 
"  suits  at  common  law,"  where  the  value  in  contro- 
versy exceeds  twenty  dollars.  Of  course,  Freedom  is 
not  susceptible  of  pecuniary  valuation,  therefore  there 
can  be  no  question  that  the  claim  for  a  fugitive  slave 
is  within  this  condition.  In  determining  what  is  meant 
by  "  suits  at  common  law,"  recourse  must  be  had  to 
the  common  law  itself,  precisely  as  we  resort  to  that 
law  in  order  to  determine  what  is  meant  by  "  Trial  by 
Jury."  Let  the  Senator,  if  he  be  a  lawyer,  now  under- 
take to  show  that  a  claim  for  a  fugitive  slave  is  not, 
according  to  the  early  precedents  and  writs  —  well 
known  to  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  especially 
to  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney  and  John  Rutledge» 


370  DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 

of  South  Carolina,  both  of  whom  had  studied  law  at 
the  Temple  —  a  suit  at  common  law,  to  which,  under 
the  solemn  guaranty  of  the  Constitution,  is  attached 
the  Trial  by  Jury,  as  an  inseparable  incident.  Let  the 
Senator  undertake  to  show  this,  if  he  can. 

And,  sir,  when  the  veteran  Senator  has  found  a 
power  in  the  Constitution  where  none  exists,  and  has 
set  aside  the  right  of  Trial  by  Jury  in  a  suit  at  com- 
mon law,  then  let  him  answer  yet  another  objec- 
tion. By  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  a  claim  for  a  fugitive  slave  is  declared 
to  be  a  case  under  the  Constitution,  within  the  judicial 
power  ;  and  this  judgment  of  the  court  is  confirmed  by 
common  sense  and  common  law.  Let  the  Senator 
undertake  to  show,  if  he  can,  how  such  an  exalted  ex- 
ercise of  judicial  power  can  be  confided  to  a  single  petty 
magistrate,  appointed,  not  by  the  President,  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  but  by  the  Court ; 
holding  his  office,  not  during  good  behavior,  but  merely 
during  the  will  of  the  Court ;  and  receiving,  not  a 
regular  salary,  but  fees  according  to  each  individual 
case.  Let  the  Senator  answer  this  objection,  if,  in  any 
way,  by  any  twist  of  learning,  logic,  or  law,  he  can. 

Thus,  sir,  do  I  present  the  issue  directly  on  this 
outrageous  enactment.  Let  the  author  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Bill  meet  it.  He  will  find  me  ready  to  follow 
him  in  argument,  though  I  trust  never  to  be  led,  even 
by  his  example,  into  any  departure  from  those  courte- 
sies of  debate  which  are  essential  to  the  harmony  of 
every  legislative  body. 

Such,  Mr.  President,  is  my  response  to  all  that  has 
been  said  —  in  this  debate  —  so  far  as  I  deem  it  in 


DEFENCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS.  371 

any  way  worthy  of  attention.  To  the  two  associate 
chieftains  in  this  personal  assault,  the  veteran  Senator 
from  Virginia,  and  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina 
with  the  silver-white  locks,  I  have  replied  completely. 
It  is  true  that  others  have  joined  in  the  cry,  which 
these  associates  first  started  ;  but  I  shall  not  be  tempted 
further.  Some  there  are  who  are  best  answered  by 
silence ;  best  answered  by  withholding  the  words 
which  leap  impulsively  to  the  lips. 

And  now,  turning  my  back  upon  these  things,  let 
-me,  as  I  close,  dwell  on  a  single  aspect  of  this  discus- 
sion which  will  render  it  memorable.  On  former  occa- 
sions like  this,  the  right  of  petition  has  been  vehemently 
assailed,  or  practically  denied.  Only  two  years  ago, 
memorials  for  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill, 
presented  by  me,  were  laid  on  your  table,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, without  reference  to  any  Committee.  All  is 
changed  now.  Senators  have  condemned  the  memo- 
rial, and  sounded  the  cry  of  "  treason,"  "  treason,"  in 
our  ears  ;  but  thus  far,  throughout  this  excited  debate, 
no  person  has  so  completely  outraged  the  spirit  of  our 
institutions,  or  forgotten  himself,  as  to  persevere  in 
objecting  to  the  reception  of  the  memorial,  and  its 
proper  reference.  It  is  true,  the  remonstrants  and 
their  representatives  here  have  been  treated  with  in- 
dignity ;  but  the  great  right  of  petition  —  the  sword 
and  buckler  of  the  citizen  —  though  thus  discredited, 
has  not  been  denied.  Here,  sir,  is  a  triumph  for 
Freedom. 


STRUGGLE  FOR  THE  REPEAL  OF  THE  FUGITIVE 
SLAVE  BILL 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED   STATES,    31ST   JULY,   1854. 

The  efforts  of  the  friends  of  Freedom  in  Congress  have  encoun- 
tered opposition  at  every  stage.  The  presentation  of  petitions 
by  John  Quincy  Adams  was  thwarted  in  every  way  that  vin- 
dictive rage  could  prompt.  All  propositions  for  the  repeal  of 
obnoxious  laws  sustaining  Slavery  have  been  stifled.  To  accom- 
plish this  result,  parliamentary  courtesy  and  parliamentary  law 
have  both  been  set  at  defiance.  On  a  former  occasion,  (see  ante, 
p.  74,)  when  Mr.  Sumner  brought  forward  his  motion  for  the 
repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  he  was  refused  a  hearing  ;  and 
he  obtained  it  only  by  taking  advantage  of  the  Civil  and  Diplo- 
matic Appropriation  Bill,  and  moving  an  amendment  to  it,  which 
no  parliamentary  subtlety  or  audacity  could  declare  to  be  out  of 
order.  On  the  presentation  of  petitions  against  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Bill,  from  time  to  time,  he  was  met  by  similar  checks. 
Meanwhile,  anything  for  Slavery  was  always  in  order.  An  ex- 
perience of  a  single  day  will  show  something  of  this. 

On  the  31st  July,  1854,  Mr.  Seward,  of  New  York,  under 
instructions  from  the  Committee  on  Pensions,  reported  a  Bill, 
which  had  already  passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  for  the 
relief  of  Betsey  Nash,  a  poor  and  aged  woman,  whose  husband 
had  died  of  wounds  received  in  the  the  war  of  1812,  and  asked 
for  its  immediate  consideration.  This  simple  measure,  demanded 
by  obvious  justice,  was  at  once  embarrassed  by  an  incongruous 
proposition  for  the  support  of  Slavery.  Mr.  Adams,  of  Missis- 
sippi, moved,  as  an  amendment,  another  Bill,  for  the  relief  of 
Mrs.  Batchelder,  the  widow  of  a  person  who  had  been  killed  in 
Boston,  while  aiding  as  a  volunteer  in  the  enforcement  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Bill.  In  the  face  of  various  objections  this  amend- 

[372] 


STRUGGLE    FOR    THE    REPEAL,    ETC.  373 

ment  was  adopted.  Mr.  Sumner  at  once  followed  by  a  propo- 
sition in  the  following  words  : 

"  Provided,  that  the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  18th  Sept. 
1850,  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  service  or  labor,  be, 
and  the  same  hereby  is  repealed." 

But  this  was  ruled  out  of  order,  as  "  not  germane  to  the  Bill 
under  consideration;"  and  the  two  Bills,  hitched  together  — 
one  for  a  military  pension,  and  the  other  for  contribution  to  the 
xvidow  of  a  Slave-Hunter  —  were  put  on  their  passage.  Mr. 
Sumner  then  sprang  for  the  floor,  when  a  struggle  ensued,  which 
is  minutely  reported  in  the  Congressional  Globe.  The  careful 
reader  will  observe  that,  in  order  to  cut  off  an  effort  to  repeal 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  at  least  two  unquestionable  rules  of 
parliamentary  law  were  overturned. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  In  pursuance  of  notice,  I  now  ask 
leave  to  introduce  a  Bill. 

Mr.  STUART.  I  object  to  it,  and  move  to  take  up 
the  River  and  Harbor  Bill. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  other  Bill  is  not 
disposed  of.  The  third  reading  of  a  Bill  for  the  relief 
of  Betsey  Nash. 

The  Bill  was  then  read  a  third  time  and  passed. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  In  pursuance  of  notice,  I  ask  leave 
to  introduce  a  Bill,  which  I  now  send  to  the  table. 

Mr.  STUART.     Is  that  in  order  ? 

Mr.  SUMNER.     Why  not  ? 

Mr.  BENJAMIN.  There  is  a  pending  motion  of  the 
Senator  from  Michigan  to  take  up  the  River  and  Har- 
bor Bill. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  That  motion  was  not 
entertained,  because  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
had  and  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  STUART.     I  make  the  motion  now. 
32 


374  STRUGGLE    FOB    THE    REPEAJL 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICEB.  The  Chair  thinks  it  is 
in  order  to  give  the  notice. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Notice  has  been  given,  and  I  now, 
in  pursuance  of  notice,  introduce  the  Bill.  The  ques- 
tion is  on  its  first  reading. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  first  reading  of  a 
Bill. 

Mr.  NORRIS.     I  rise  to  a  question  of  order. 

Mr.  SUMNER.     I  believe  I  have  the  floor. 

Mr.  NORRIS.  But  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order.  I 
submit  that  that  is  not  the  question.  The  Senator 
from  Massachusetts  has  givsn  notice  that  he  would 
ask  leave  to  introduce  a  Bill.  He  now  asks  that 
leave.  If  there  be  objection,  the  question  must  be 
decided  by  the  Senate  whether  he  shall  have  leave  or 
not.  Objection  is  made,  and  the  Bill  cannot  be  read. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Very  well ;  the  first  question,  then, 
is  on  granting  leave,  and  the  title  of  the  Bill  will  be 
read. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER  (to  the  Secretary).  Read 
the  title. 

The  Secretary  read  it  as  follows  :  "  A  Bill  to  repeal 
the  Act  of  Congress  approved  18th  September,  1850, 
for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  service  or  labor." 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  question  is  on 
granting  leave  to  introduce  the  Bill. 

Mr.  SUMNER.     And  I  have  the  floor. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Senator  from  Mas- 
sachusetts is  entitled  to  the  floor. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  I  shall  not  occupy  much  time  ;  nor 
shall  I  debate  the  Bill.  Some  time  ago,  Mr.  President, 
after  the  presentation  of  the  Memorial  from  Boston, 
signed  by  twenty-nine  hundred  citizens  without  dis- 


OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE    BILI,.  375 

tinction  of  party,  I  gave  notice  that  I  should,  at  some 
day  thereafter,  ask  leave  to  introduce  a  Bill  for  the 
repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act.  Desirous,  however, 
not  to  proceed  in  that  matter  prematurely,  I  awaited 
the  action  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  which 
the  memorial,  and  others  of  a  similar  character,  were 
referred.  At  length  an  adverse  report  waa  made,  and 
accepted  by  the  Senate.  From  the  time  of  that  report 
down  to  this  moment,  I  have  sought  an  opportunity 
to  introduce  this  Bill.  Now,  at  last,  I  have  it.  At  a 
former  session,  sir,  in  introducing  a  similar  proposition, 
I  considered  it  at  length,  in  an  argument  which  I  fear- 
lessly assert  — 

Mr.  GWIN.  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  Has  the 
Senator  a  right  to  debate  the  question,  or  say  anything 
on  it  until  leave  be  granted  ? 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  My  impression  is  that 
the  question  is  not  debatable.* 

Mr.  SUMNER.  I  propose  simply  to  explain  my  Bill, 
to  make  a  statement,  not  an  argument. 

Mr.  GWIN.     I  make  the  point  of  order. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  I  am  not  aware  pre- 
cisely what  the  rule  of  order  on  the  subject  is ;  but 
I  have  the  impression  that  the  Senator  cannot  de- 
bate— 

Mr.  SITMNER.     The  distinction  is  this  — 

Mr.  GWIN.  I  insist  upon  the  application  of  the 
decision  of  the  Chair. 

Mr.  MASON.  Mr.  President,  there  is  one  rule  of 
order  that  is  undoubted  :  that  Avhen  the  Chair  is  stat- 

*  Nothing  is  clearer,  under  the  rules  of  the  Senate,  than  that 
Mr.  Sumner  was  in  order  when,  on  introducing  his  Bill,  he  pro- 
ceeded to  state  the  causes  for  doing  it. 


376  STRUGGLE    FOR    THE    REPEAL 

ing  a  question  of  order,  he  must  not  be  interrupted  by 
a  Senator.  There  is  no  question  about  that  rule  of 
order. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Senator  did  not 
interrupt  the  Chair. 

Mr.  STJMNER.  The  Chair  does  me  justice  in  re- 
sponse to  the  injustice  of  the  Senator  from  Virginia. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.     Order,  order  ! 

Mr.  MASON.  The  Senator  is  doing  that  very  thing 
at  this  moment.  I  am  endeavoring  to  sustain  the 
authority  of  the  Chair,  which  certainly  has  been  vio- 
lated. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  It  is  the  opinion  of  the 
Chair  that  the  debate  is  out  of  order.  I  am  not  pre- 
cisely informed  of  what  the  rule  is ;  but  such  is  my 
clear  impression. 

Mr.  WALKER.  If  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
will  allow  me,  I  will  say  a  word  here. 

Mr.  STTMNER.     Certainly. 

Mr.  WALKER.  It  is  usual,  upon  notice  being  given 
of  intention,  to  ask  leave  to  introduce  a  Bill.  The 
Bill  is  sent  to  the  Chair,  and  it  is  taken  as  a  matter  of 
course  that  the  Senator  asking  it  has  leave.  But  in 
this  instance,  differing  from  the  usual  practice,  objec- 
tion has  been  made  to  leave  being  granted.  The 
necessity  is  imposed,  then,  of  taking  the  sense  of  the 
Senate  on  granting  leave  to  the  Senator  to  introduce 
his  Bill.  That,  then,  becomes  the  question.  The 
question  for  the  Chair  to  put  is,  Shall  the  Senator 
have  leave  ? 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  That  was  the  question 
proposed. 

Mr.  WALKER.     Now,  sir,  it  does  seem  to  me  that 


OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE    BILL.  377 

it  is  proper,  and  that  it  is  in  order,  for  the  Senator  to 
address  himself  to  the  Senate,  with  the  view  of  show- 
ing the  propriety  of  granting  the  leave  asked  for.  He 
has  a  right  to  show  that  there  would  be  propriety  on 
the  part  of  the  Senate  in  granting  the  leave.  I  think, 
therefore,  as  this  may  become  a  precedent  in  future  in 
regard  to  other  matters,  that  it  should  be  settled  with 
some  degree  of  deliberation. 

Mr.  GWIN.     Let  the  Chair  decide  the  question. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Chair  has  decided 
that  debate  was  not  in  order,  in  his  opinion. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  From  that  decision  of  the  Chair,  I 
most  respectfully  take  an  appeal. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  From  that  ruling  of  the 
Chair  an  appeal  is  taken  by  the  Senator  from  Massa- 
chusetts. The  question  is  on  the  appeal. 

Mr.  BENJAMIN.  In  order  to  put  a  stop  to  the 
whole  debate,  I  move  to  lay  the  appeal  on  the  table, 
That  is  a  motion  which  is  not  debatable. 

Mr.  SUMNER.     Is  that  motion  in  order  ? 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.     Certainly  it  is  in  order.* 

Mr.  WELLER.  I  desire  to  make  one  remark  in 
regard  to  the  rule. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  It  is  not  in  order  now. 
The  question  must  be  taken  without  debate. 

Mr.  SU.MNER.  Allow  me  to  state  the  case  as  it 
seems  to  me.  I  was  on  the  floor,  and  yielded  it  to 
the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  strictly  for  the  purpose  of 
an  explanation.  When  he  finished  I  was  in  posses- 

*  The  motion  was  clearly  out  of  order.     In   the  Senate  an 
appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair  on  a  question  of  order  cannot 
be  laid  on  the  table. 
32* 


378  SIBTJGGLE    FOB    THE    BEPEAL 

sion  of  the  floor ;  and  then  it  was  that  the  Senator 
from  Louisiana,  on  my  right  — 

The  PBESIDIXG  OFFICES.  Will  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  give  leave  to  the  Chair  to  explain  ? 

Mr.  SUAIXEB.     Certainly. 

The  PBESIDING  OFFICES.  A  point  of  order  was 
made  by  the  Senator  from  California  [Mr.  Gwin], 
that  delate  was  not  in  order  upon  the  question  of 
granting  leave  ;  and  the  Chair  so  decided.  The  Sen- 
ator from  Massachusetts  then  lost  the  floor,  as  I  appre- 
hend, and  he  certainly  did  by  following  it  up  by  an 
appeal.  After  that  he  could  go  no  further.  He  lost 
the  floor  then  again  for  a  second  time,  and  then  it  was 
that  the  Senator  from  Louisiana  intervened  with  an- 
other motion,  which  is  certainly  in  order,  to  lay  the 
appeal  on  the  table.  That  is  not  debatable.  This,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  the  state  of  the  case. 

Mr.  CHASE.  Will  the  Chair  allow  me  to  make  a 
single  statement  ? 

The  PBESIDING  OFFICES.     Certainly. 

Mr.  CHASE.  The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  rose 
and  held  the  floor  during  the  suggestion  made  to  the 
Chair  by  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin.  The  Chair 
then,  after  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  had  finished 
his  suggestion,  declared  his  opinion  to  be,  notwith- 
standing the  suggestion,  that  debate  was  not  in  order. 
The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  then  took  an  appeal, 
and  retained  the  floor  for  the  purpose  of  addressing  the 
Senate  on  that  appeal.  While  he  occupied  the  floor, 
the  Senator  from  Louisiana  rose  and  moved  to  lay  the 
appeal  upon  the  table.  That  will  be  borne  out  by  the 
the  gentlemen  present. 

The  PBESIDING  OFFICES.     That  is  so  ;    but  the 


OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE    BILL.  379 

Chair  does  not  understand  that  debate  was  in  order  on 
the  appeal.  The  appeal  was  to  be  decided  without 
debate,  and  therefore  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
necessarily  lost  the  floor  after  he  took  the  appeal. 

Mr.  BELL.  I  would  inquire  whether  there  is  not  a 
Bill  already  pending  for  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  ? 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  I  have  not  inquired  of 
the  Secretary  ;  but  it  is  my  belief  there  is  a  similar 
Bill  pending  ;  but  it  was  not  on  that  ground  the  Chair 
made  this  ruling. 

Mr.  BELL.  I  would  inquire  whether  there  is  not 
such  a  Bill  pending  ?  Did  not  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Ohio  some  time  ago  bring  in  such  a  Bill  ? 

Mr.  WELLEK.     I  think  he  did. 

Mr.  CHASE.     No,  sir. 

Mr.  BELL.     Then  I  am  mistaken. 

Mr.  CHASE.     My  Bill  is  not  on  that  subject. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  of  the  Senator  from  Louisiana,  to  lay  on  the 
table  the  appeal  taken  by  the  Senator  from  Massachu- 
setts from  the  decision  of  the  Chair. 

Mr.  CHASE.  I  ask  if  the  motion  of  the  Senator 
from  Louisiana  is  in  order  when  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  retained  the  floor  for  the  purpose  of 
debating  the  appeal  ? 

Mr.  BENJAMIN.  The  Senator  is  not  in  order  in 
renewing  that  question,  which  has  already  been  decided 
by  the  Chair. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  If  the  Chair  acted 
under  an  erroneous  impression  in  supposing  that  debate 
on  the  appeal  was  not  in  order,  when  it  actually  is,  it 
was  the  fault  of  the  Chair,  and  it  would  not  have  been 


380  STRUGGLE    FOE    THE    REPEAL 

in  order  for  the  Senator  from  Louisiana  to  make  the 
motion  which  he  did  make,  while  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  was  on  the  floor.  But  the  Chair  recog- 
nized the  Senator  from  Louisiana,  supposing  that  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  had  yielded  the  floor. 
The  Senator  had  taken  an  appeal ;  he  followed  it  up 
by  no  address  to  the  Chair,  indicating  an  intention 
that  he  intended  to  debate  the  appeal,  or  the  Chair 
certainly  should  so  far  have  recognized  him.  But  the 
Chair  would  reconsider  his  ruling  in  that  respect,  with 
the  consent  of  the  Senator  from  Louisiana. 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  The  Chair  will  permit  me  to  suggest 
that  I  think  the  motion  proper  to  be  entertained  now 
is  the  one  proposed  by  the  Senator  from  New  Hamp- 
shire [Mr.  Norris].  The  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
presented  his  Bill,  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire 
raised  the  question  as  to  whether  the  Senate  would 
grant  leave  to  introduce  it ;  and  I  think  the  proper 
question  to  be  put  now  is,  will  the  Senate  grant  leave 
to  introduce  a  Bill  repealing  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  ? 
The  effect  of  the  motion  of  the  Senator  from  Louisiana 
would  be  to  lay  the  subject  on  the  table,  from  which 
it  might  be  taken  at  any  time  for  action.  For  one,  I 
desire  to  give  a  decisive  vote  now,  declaring  that  I  am 
unwilling  to  legislate  upon  the  subject,  that  I  am  satis- 
fied with  the  law  as  it  reads,  and  that  I  will  not  aid 
the  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  or  any  Senator  in  — 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Senator  from  Indi- 
ana is  certainly  not  in  order. 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  I  certainly  am  in  order  in  calling  the 
attention  of  the  Chair  to  the  fact  that  the  Senator  from 
New  Hampshire  — 


OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE    BILL.  381 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICES.  The  Senator  from  Indi- 
ana is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  Then  I  will  sit  down  and  ask  the 
Chair  to  state  wherein  I  am  out  of  order  ? 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICEE.  In  discussing  a  ques- 
tion which  is  not  before  the  Senate. 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  I  claim  that  the  motion  is  before  the 
Senate.  The  Senator  from  New  Hampshire  raised  the 
question  immediately  that  — 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICEE.  The  Chair  decides 
otherwise. 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  Then  I  appeal  from  the  decision  of 
the  Chair,  and  I  state  this  as  my  point  of  order  :  that 
before  the  Bill  was  presented  in  legal  parlance,  the 
Senator  from  New  Hampshire  raised  the  question  as 
to  whether  the  Senate  would  grant  leave,  and  that  is 
the  point  now  before  the  Senate.  • 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Chair  will  state 
the  question  which  he  supposes  to  be  pending.  The 
Senator  from  California  made  a  point  of  order  that 
debate  on  the  Bill  proposed  to  be  introduced  by  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts,  was  not  in  order.  The 
Chair  so  ruled.  From  that  ruling  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  took  an  appeal.  The  Chair  supposed 
that  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  had  yielded  the 
floor,  and  he  gave  the  floor  to  the  Senator  from  Louis- 
iana, who  moved  to  lay  that  appeal  on  the  table.  That 
is  the  question  which  is  now  pending.  The  Chair  be- 
fore suggested  that  if  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
had  not  yielded  the  floor,  he  had  made  a  mistake  in 
giving  the  floor  to  the  Senator  from  Louisiana,  but  he 
did  not  suppose  that  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts, 
after  taking  the  appeal,  without  somo  indication  of  his 


382  STRUGGLE    FOR    THE    REPEAL 

intention  to  debate  it,  could  continue  to  hold  the  floor, 
and  he  therefore  recognized  the  Senator  from  Louisiana. 
The  Chair  is  sorry  if  he  did  the  Senator  from  Massa- 
chusetts injustice  in  that  respect,  but  he  did  not  hear 
him,  and  recognized  the  Senator  from  Louisiana. 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  I  would  respectfully  ask  the  Chair 
what  has  become  of  the  motion  submitted  by  the  Sen- 
ator from  New  Hampshire  ? 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Chair  did  not 
understand  him  to  submit  a  motion,  but  the  Senator 
from  California  took  his  point  of  order. 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  I  wish  to  inquire  of  the  Senator 
from  New  Hampshire  whether  he  has  withdrawn  his 
motion  ? 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  It  was  not  entertained. 
It  is  not  in  his  power  to  say  whether  it  was  withdrawn 
or  not,  for  it  was  not  entertained. 

Mr.  NORRIS.  I  think  I  can  inform  my  friend  from 
Indiana  how  the  matter  stands.  The  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  proposed  to  introduce  a  Bill  on  notice 
given.  I  raised  the  question  that  it  could  not  be  intro- 
duced without  leave  of  the  Senate,  if  there  was  objec- 
tion. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Do  I  understand  the  Senator  to  say 
without  notice  given  ?  I  asked  leave  to  introduce  the 
Bill  in  pursuance  of  notice. 

Mr.  NORRIS.  The  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  I 
have  already  stated,  offered  his  Bill  agreeably  to  pre- 
vious notice. 

Mr.  SUJTXER.     Precisely. 

Mr.  NORRIS.  The  question  was  then  raised,  whether 
it  could  be  received  if  there  was  objection.  The  ques- 


OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE    BILL.  383 

tion  arose  whether  leave  should  be  granted  to  the  Sen- 
ator from  Massachusetts  to  introduce  the  Bill  ? 

Mr.  SUMXER.     That  is  the  first  question. 

Mr.  NORRIS.  The  Senator  from  Massachusetts, 
upon  the  question  of  granting  leave,  undertook  to 
address  the  Senate.  He  was  then  called  to  order  by 
my  friend  from  California,  for  discussing  that  question. 
The  Chair  sustained  the  objection  of  the  Senator  from 
California.  From  the  decision  of  the  Chair  the  Sen- 
ator from  Massachusetts  took  an  appeal,  and  that  is 
where  the  question  now  stands,  unless  the  Senator 
from  Louisiana  had  a  right  to  make  the  motion  which 
he  did  make,  which  was  to  lay  the  appeal  on  the 
table. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  question  is,  unless 
the  Senator  from  Louisiana  will  disembarrass  the  Chair 
by  withdrawing  it,  on  the  motion  of  the  Senator  from 
Louisiana,  to  lay  the  appeal  on  the  table. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  On  that  motion  I  ask  for  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  FOOT.  On  what  motion  have  the  yeas  and 
nays  been  ordered  ? 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  On  the  motion  of  the 
Senator  from  Louisiana. 

Mr.  WALKER.  I  wish  to  know,  before  voting,  what 
will  be  the  effect  of  a  vote  given  in  the  affirmative  on 
this  motion  ?  Will  it  carry  the  Bill  and  the  whole 
subject  on  the  table  ? 

Mr.  FOOT.  An  affirmative  vote  carries  the  whole 
measure  on  the  table. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.     Yes,  sir ;  if  the  motion 


384  STRUGGLE    FOR    THE    REPEAL 

to  lay  on  the  table  be  agreed  to,  it  carries  the  Bill 
with  it. 

Several  SENATORS.     No,  no. 

Mr.  BENJAMIN.  The  question  is  whether,  on  the 
motion  for  leave  to  introduce  the  Bill,  there  shall  be 
debate  ?  The  Chair  has  decided  that  there  shall  be  no 
debate.  Those  who  vote  "  yea "  on  my  motion  to 
lay  the  appeal  of  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  on 
the  table,  will  vote  that  there  is  to  be  no  debate  upon 
the  permission  to  offer  the  Bill,  and  then  the  question 
will  be  taken  upon  granting  leave. 

Mr.  WALKER.  The  Chair  decides  differently.  The 
Chair  decides,  if  I  understand,  that  it  will  carry  the 
Bill  on  the  table.  Then,  how  can  we  ever  reach  the 
question  of  leave  when  objection  is  made  ? 

Mr.  WELLER.  I  object  to  this  discussion.  The 
Chair  will  decide  that  question  when  it  arises.  It 
does  not  arise  now.  I  insist  that  the  Secretary  shall 
go  on  and  call  the  roll. 

Mr.  WALKER.     Suppose  some  of  us  object  to  it  ? 

Mr.  WELLER.  Then  I  object  to  your  discussing 
it. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Chair,  on  reflection, 
thinks  that  the  motion,  if  agreed  to,  would  not  have  a 
further  effect  than  to  bring  up  the  question  of  granting 
leave. 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  I  desire  to  understand  the  Chair.  I 
do  not  wish  to  insist  on  anything  that  is  not  right,  or 
that  is  not  within  the  rules.  That  I  insist  upon  hav- 
ing. The  honorable  Senator  from  Louisiana  is  right 
in  his  conclusions  as  to  his  motion,  provided  he  had 
a  right  to  make  the  motion  ;  but  I  doubt  whether  he 
had  a  right  to  make  that  motion  while  the  motion  of 


OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE    BILL.  385 

the  honorable  Senator  from  New  Hampshire  was  pend- 
ing. I  do  not  wish,  however,  to  consume  the  time  of 
the  Senate.  If  the  effect  of  the  decision  of  the  Chair 
is  to  bring  us  back  to  the  question  as  to  whether  we 
shall  receive  the  Bill  or  not,  I  will  yield  the  floor. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.     That  is  it. 

Mr.  BRIGHT.     Very  well. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Before  the  vote  is  taken,  allow  me 
to  read  a  few  words  from  the  Rules  and  Orders,  and 
from  Jefferson's  Manual. 

"  One  day's  notice,  at  least,  shall  be  given  of  an  intended 
motion  for  leave  to  bring  in  a  Bill." 

That  is  the  25th  rule  of  the  Senate,  and  then  to  that 
rule,  in  the  publication  which  I  now  hold  in  my  hand, 
is  appended,  from  Jefferson's  Manual,  the  following 
decisive  language  : 

"  When  a  member  desires  to  bring  in  a  Bill  on  any  subject, 
he  states  to  the  House,  in  general  terms,  the  causes  for  doing  it, 
and  concludes  for  leave  to  bring  in  a  Bill  entitled,  &c.  Leave 
being  given,  on  the  question,  a  Committee  is  appointed  to  pre- 
pare and  bring  in  the  Bill." 

Now,  I  would  simply  observe,  that  my  purpose  was 
merely  to  make  a  statement  — 

Mr.  BENJAMIN.     I  call  to  order. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Senator  had  pre- 
sented his  Bill,  and  was  debating  it  afterwards.  The 
question  is  now  on  the  motion  of  the  Senator  from 
Louisiana,  to  lay  the  appeal  on  the  table ;  and  on  that 
the  yeas  and  nays  have  been  ordered. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  resulted 
—  yeas  35,  nays  10  ;  as  follows  : 

YEAS— Messrs.  Adams,  Atoliiason,  Bell,  Benjamin,  Brodliead, 
33 


386  STRUGGLE    FOR    THE    REPEAL 

Brown,  Butler,  Cass,  Clay,  Cooper,  Dawson,  Dodge,  of  Iowa, 
Evans,  Fitzpatrick,  Geyer,  Gwin,  Johnson,  Jones,  of  Iowa,  Jones, 
of  Tennessee,  Mallory,  Mason,  Morton,  Norris,  Pearce,  Pettit, 
Pratt,  Rusk,  Sebastian,  Slidell,  Stuart,  Thompson,  of  Kentucky, 
Thomson,  of  New  Jersey,  Toombs,  Toucey  and  Weller  —  35. 

NAYS  —  Messrs.  Chase,  Fessenden,  Fish,  Foot,  Gillette,  Rock- 
well, Seward,  Sumner,  Wade  and  Walker — 10. 

So  the  appeal  was  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  question  now  is 
on  granting  leave  to  introduce  the  Bill. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  On  that  question  I  ask  for  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

Mr.  STUART.  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order  ;  and  I 
think  if  the  Chair  will  consider  it  for  the  moment,  he 
will,  or,  at  least,  I  hope  he  will,  agree  with  me.  The 
parliamentary  law  is  the  law  under  which  the  Senate 
act.  Whenever  there  is  a  motion  made  to  lay  on  the 
table  a  subject  connected  with  the  main  subject,  and  it 
prevails,  it  carries  the  whole  question  with  it.  It  is 
different  entirely  from  the  rule  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. The  rules  in  the  House  vary  the  parlia- 
mentary law,  and  you  may  there  move  to  lay  a  matter 
on  the  table,  because  that  is  the  final  vote,  and  is 
equivalent  to  rejecting  it,  and  a  motion  to  take  it  up 
from  the  table  is  not  in  order.  But  now  the  Presiding 
Officer  will  see  that  if  this  course  be  pursued,  the 
Senate  may  grant  leave  to  introduce  this  Bill,  they 
may  go  on  and  pass  it,  and  yet  next  week  it  will  be  in 
order  for  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  to  move  to 
take  up  the  appeal  which  the  Senate  has  just  laid  on 
the  table  ;  whereas  the  whole  subject  on  which  his 
appeal  rested  might  have  been  passed  and  sent  to  the 
other  House.  That  surely  cannot  be  so.  The  ruling 
of  the  Chair  in  this  respect,  therefore,  I  suggest  is 


OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE    BILL.  387 

wrong,  and  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  carries  the 
whole  subject  with  it.  It  is  important  to  have  the 
matter  settled  for  the  future  practice  of  the  Senate. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  At  the  first  mooting  of 
the  proposition,  the  Chair  was  of  that  opinion  ;  but  he 
is  perfectly  satisfied  now  that  it  did  not  carry  the  whole 
question  with  it.  The  question  was  on  the  motion  to 
lay  the  appeal  on  the  table,  and  that  motion  was  ex- 
hausted when  it  did  lay  the  appeal  on  the  table.  It 
did  not  reach  back  to  affect  the  question  of  granting 
leave.  That  is  now  the  question  before  the  Senate. 
On  that  the  yeas  and  nays  have  been  asked  for  by  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  STUART.  I  will  not  take  an  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  the  Chair,  but  I  only  wish  to  say  that  as  I 
am  satisfied  I  am  right,  I  do  not  wish,  by  acquiescing 
in  the  decision  of  the  Chair,  to  embarrass  us  when  such 
occasions  may  arise  again. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  ruiys  upon 
granting  leave  to  introduce  the  Bill,  resulted  —  yeas 
10,  nays  35  ;  as  follows  : 

YEAS —  Messrs.  Chase,  Dodge,  of  Wisconsin,  Fessenden,  Foot, 
Gillette,  Rockwell,  Seward,  Sumner,  Wade  and  Walker  — 10. 

NATS  —  Messrs.  Adams,  Atchison,  Boll,  Benjamin,  Bright, 
Brodhead,  Brown,  Butler,  Cass,  Clay,  Cooper,  Dawson,  Evans, 
Fitzpatrick,  Geyer,  Gwin,  Johnson,  JOECS,  of  Iowa,  Jones,  of 
Tennessee,  Mallory,  Mason,  Morton,  Norris,  Pearce,  Pettit,  Pratt, 
Rusk,  Sebastian,  Slidell,  Stuart,  Thompson,  of  Kentucky,  Thom- 
son, of  New  Jersey,  Toombs,  Toucey  and  Weller  —  35. 

So  the  Senate  refused  to  grant  leave  to  introduce 
the  Bill. 


THE    DUTIES    OF   MASSACHUSETTS  AT    THE 
PRESENT  CRISIS. 

SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  REPUBLICAN   STATE  CONVENTION  AT  WOR- 
CESTER,   7TH   SEPTEMBER,    1854.* 


MR.  PRESIDENT  AND  FELLOW-CITIZENS  OF  MASSA- 
CHUSETTS :  After  months  of  anxious,  constant  service 
in  another  place,  away  from  Massachusetts,  I  am  per- 
mitted again  to  stand  among  you,  my  fellow-citizens, 
and  to  draw  satisfaction  and  strength  from  your  gener- 
ous presence.  (Applause.)  Life  is  full  of  changes 
and  contrasts.  From  slave  soil  I  have  come  to  free 
soil.  (Applause.)  From  the  tainted  breath  of  Slavery 
I  have  passed  to  this  bracing  air  of  Freedom.  (Ap- 
plause.) And  the  heated  antagonism  of  debate, 
shooting  forth  its  fiery  cinders,  is  changed  into  this 
brimming,  overflowing  welcome,  where  I  seem  to  lean 
on  the  great  heart  of  our  beloved  Commonwealth,  as 
it  palpitates  audibly  in  this  crowded  assembly.  (Loud 
and  long  applause.) 

Let  me  say  at  once,  frankly  and  sincerely,  that  I 
have  not  come  here  to  receive  applause  or  to  give 
occasion  for  any  tokens  of  public  regard  ;  but  simply 

*  This  speech  is  copied  from  iho  newspapers  of  the  day. 

[388] 


THE    DUTIES    OF    MASSACHUSETTS,  ETC.  389 

to  unite  with  my  fellow-citizens  in  new  vows  of  duty. 
(Applause.)  And  yet  I  would  not  be  thought  insen- 
sible to  the  good  will  now  swelling  from  so  many 
honest  bosoms.  It  touches  me  more  than  I  can 
tell. 

During  the  late  session  of  Congress,  an  eminent 
supporter  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  said  to  me,  with  great 
animation,  in  language  which  I  give  with  some  pre- 
cision, that  you  may  appreciate  the  style  as  well  as  the 
sentiment :  "  I  would  not  go  through  all  that  you  do 
on  this  nigger  question,  for  all  the  offices  and  honors 
of  the  country."  To  which  I  naturally  and  promptly 
replied :  "  Nor  would  I  for  all  the  offices  and  honors 
of  the  country."  (Laughter  and  long  applause.)  Not 
in  such  things  can  be  found  the  true  inducements  to 
this  warfare.  For  myself,  if  I  have  been  able  to  do 
anything  in  any  respect  not  unworthy  of  you,  it  is 
because  I  thought  rather  of  those  commanding  duties 
which  are  above  office  and  honor.  (Cries  of  good, 
good,  and  loud  applause.) 

And  now,  on  the  eve  of  an  important  election  in 
this  State,  we  have  assembled  to  take  counsel  together, 
in  order  to  determine  how  best  to  perform  those  duties 
which  we  owe  to  our  common  country.  We  are  to 
choose  eleven  Representatives  in  Congress ;  also, 
Governor,  Lieutenant-Governor  and  members  of  the 
Legislature,  which  last  will  choose  a  Senator  of  the 
United  States,  to  uphold,  for  five  years  ensuing,  the 
principles  and  honor  of  Massachusetts.  If  in  these 
elections  you  were  to  be  governed  merely  by  partiali- 
ties or  prejudices,  whether  personal  or  political,  or 
merely  by  the  exactions  of  party,  I  should  have 
nothing  to  say  now,  except  to  dismiss  you  to  your 
33* 


390  THE    DUTIES    OF    MASSACHUSETTS 

ignoble  work.  (That  is  it,  good,  good.)  But  I  as- 
sume that  you  are  ready  to  renounce  these  influences 
and  press  forward  with  a  single  regard  to  those  duties 
which  are  now  incumbent  upon  us  in  National  affairs, 
and  also  in  State  affairs. 

And  here  two  questions  occur  which  absorb  all 
others.  First,  what  are  our  political  duties  here  in 
Massachusetts  at  the  present  time  ?  and  secondly,  how, 
and  by  what  agency  shall  they  be  performed  ?  What, 
and  how  ?  These  are  the  two  questions  of  which 
I  shall  briefly  speak,  in  their  order,  attempting  no 
elaborate  discussion,  but  simply  aiming  to  state  the 
case  so  that  it  may  be  intelligible  to  all  who  hear 
me. 

And  first,  what  are  our  duties  here  in  Massachusetts, 
at  the  present  time  ?  In  unfolding  these,  I  need  not 
dwell  on  the  wrong  and  shame  of  Slavery,  or  on  tho 
character  of  the  Slave  Power  —  that  Oligarchy  of 
slaveholders  —  which  now  rules  the  Republic.  These 
you  understand.  And  yet  there  are  two  outrages 
fresh  in  your  recollection,  which  I  must  not  fail  to 
expose,  as  natural  manifestations  of  Slavery  and  the 
Slave  Power.  One  is  the  repeal  of  the  Prohibition  of 
Slavery  in  the  vast  Missouri  Territory,  now  known  as 
Kansas  and  Nebraska,  contrary  to  time-honored  com- 
pact and  plighted  faith.  The  other  is  the  seizure  of 
Anthony  Burns,  on  the  free  soil  of  Massachusetts, 
and  his  surrender,  without  judge  or  jury,  to  a  Slave- 
hunter  from  Virginia,  to  be  thrust  back  into  perpetual 
bondage.  (Shame  !  shame  !)  These  outrages  cry  aloud 
to  Heaven,  and  to  the  people  of  Massachusetts.  (Sen- 


AT    THE    PRESENT    CEISIS.  391 

sation.)  Their  intrinsic  wickedness  is  enhanced  by 
the  way  in  which  they  were  accomplished.  Of  the 
first,  I  know  something  from  personal  observation; 
of  the  latter,  I  am  informed  only  by  public  report. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  Slave  Power  never  to  stick 
at  any  means  supposed  to  be  needful  in  carrying  for- 
ward its  plans ;  but  never,  on  any  occasion,  were  its 
assumptions  so  barefaced  and  tyrannical  as  in  the 
passage  of  the  Nebraska  Bill. 

This  Bill  was  precipitated  upon  Congress  without 
*  one  word  of  public  recommendation  from  the  Presi- 
dent, —  without  notice  or  discussion  in  any  newspaper, 
—  and  without  a  single  petition  from  the  people.  It 
was  urged  by  different  advocates,  on  two  principal 
arguments,  so  opposite  and  inconsistent,  as  to  slap  each 
other  in  the  face.  (Laughter.)  One  being  that,  by 
the  repeal  of  the  prohibition,  the  territory  would  be 
absolutely  open  to  the  entry  of  slaveholders  with  their 
slaves  ;  and  the  other  being  that  the  people  there 
would  be  left  to  determine  whether  slaveholders  should 
enter  with  their  slaves.  With  some,  the  apology  was 
the  alleged  rights  of  slaveholders ;  with  others,  it  was 
the  alleged  rights  of  the  people.  With  some,  it  was 
openly  the  extension  of  Slavery ;  and  with  others, 
openly  the  establishment  of  Freedom,  under  the  guise 
of  "  popular  sovereignty."  Of  course,  the  measure, 
thus  upheld  in  defiance  of  reason,  was  carried  through 
Congress,  in  defiance  of  all  the  securities  of  legis- 
lation. 

It  was  carried,  first,  by  loldpping  in  to  its  support, 
through  executive  influence  and  patronage,  men  who 
acted  against  their  own  declared  judgment,  and  the 
known  will  of  their  constituents;  secondly,  by  foisting 


392  THE    DUTIES    OF    MASSACHUSETTS 

out  of  place,  both  in  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, important  business,  long  pending,  and 
usurping  its  room ;  thirdly,  by  trampling  under  foot 
the  rules  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  always 
before  the  safeguard  of  the  minority  ;  and  fourthly,  by 
driving  it.  to  a  close  during  the  present  Congress,  so 
that  it  might  not  be  arrested  by  the  indignant  voice  of 
the  people.  Such  are  some  of  the  means  by  which 
the  Nebraska  Bill  was  carried.  If  the  clear  will  of  the 
people  had  not  been  disregarded,  it  could  not  have 
passed.  If  the  Government  had  not  nefariously  inter- 
posed its  influence,  it  could  not  have  passed.  If  it 
had  been  left  to  its  natural  place  in  the  order  of 
business,  it  could  not  have  passed.  If  the  rules  of  the 
House  and  the  rights  of  the  minority  had  not  been 
violated,  it  could  not  have  passed.  If  it  had  been 
allowed  to  go  over  to  another  Congress,  when  the 
people  might  be  heard,  it  would  have  been  ended  — 
all  ended. 

Contemporaneously  with  the  final  triumph  of  this 
outrage  —  on  the  very  night  of  the  passage  of  the 
Nebraska  Bill  at  Washington  —  another  scene,  begin- 
ning a  dismal  tragedy,  was  enacted  at  Boston.  In 
those  streets  where  he  had  walked  as  a  freeman, 
Anthony  Burns  was  seized  as  a  slave  —  under  the 
base  pretext  that  he  was  a  criminal  —  imprisoned  in 
the  court-house,  which  was  turned  for  the  time  into  a 
fortress  and  barracoon  —  guarded  by  heartless  hirelings, 
whose  chief  idea  of  liberty  was  the  license  to  do  wrong 
—  (loud  applause  and  cries  of  "  that's  it !  "  "  that's 
it !  "  &c.)  —  escorted  by  intrusive  soldiers  of  the  United 
States  —  watched  by  a  prostituted  militia  —  and  finally 
given  up  to  a  Slave-hunter  by  the  decree  of  a  petty 


AT    THE    PRESENT    CRISIS.  393 

magistrate,  who  did  not  hesitate  to  take  upon  his  soul 
the  awful  responsibility  of  dooming  a  fellow-man,  in 
whom  he  could  find  no  fault,  to  a  fate  worse  than 
death.  How  all  this  was  accomplished,  I  need  not 
minutely  relate.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  in  doing  this 
deed  of  woe  and  shame,  the  liberties  of  all  our  citizens, 
white  as  well  as  black,  were  put  in  jeopardy  —  the 
Mayor  of  Boston  was  converted  to  a  tool  —  (applause) 
—  the  Governor  of  the  Commonwealth  to  a  cipher  — 
(long  continued  applause)  —  the  laws,  the  precious 
sentiments,  the  religion,  the  pride  and  glory  of  Massa- 
chusetts were  trampled  in  the  dust,  and  you  and  I  and 
all  of  us  fell  down  while  the  Slave  Power  flourished 
over  us.  (Shame,  shame,  and  applause.) 

These  things,  in  themselves  are  bad  —  very  bad ; 
but  they  are  worse  when  regarded  as  the  natural  off- 
spring of  the  Oligarchy  which  now  sways  the  country. 
And  it  is  this  Oligarchy  which,  at  every  political  hazard, 
we  must  oppose.  Already  its  schemes  of  new  aggran- 
dizement are  displayed.  With  a  watchfulness  that 
never  sleeps,  and  an  activity  that  never  tires  —  with  as 
many  eyes  as  Argus,  and  as  many  arms  as  Briareus  — 
the  Slave  Power  asserts  its  perpetual  supremacy ;  now 
threatening  to  wrest  Cuba  from  Spain,  by  violent  war, 
or  hardly  less  violent  purchase  ;  now  hankering  for 
another  slice  of  Mexico,  in  order  to  give  new  scope 
to  Slavery  ;  now  proposing  once  more  to  open  the 
hideous,  heaven-defying  slave-trade,  and  thus  to  re- 
plenish its  shambles  with  human  flesh ;  and  now  by 
the  lips  of  an  eminent  Senator  asserting  an  audacious 
claim  to  the  whole  group  of  the  "West  Indies,  whether 
held  by  Holland,  Spain,  France  or  England,  as  "  our 
Southern  Islands."  while  it  assails  the  independence 


394  THE    DUTIES    OF     MASSACHUSETTS. 

of  Hayti,  and  stretches  its  treacherous  ambition  even 
to  the  distant  Valley  of  the  Amazon. 

In  maintaining  its  power,  it  has  applied  a  new  test 
for  office,  very  different  from  that  of  Jefferson  —  "  Is 
he  honest  ?  is  he  capable  ?  is  he  faithful  to  the  consti- 
tution ?  "  None  of  these  things  are  asked,  but  simply, 
"  Is  he  faithful  to  Slavery  ?  "  (  Cries  of  "  That's  a 
fact.")  "With  arrogant  ostracism  it  excludes  from  every 
office  all  who  cannot  respond  to  this  test.  So  complete 
and  irrational  has  this  tyranny  become,  that,  at  this 
moment,  while  I  now  speak,  could  Washington,  Jeffer- 
son or  Franklin,  once  more  descend  upon  the  earth 
and  mingle  in  its  affairs  to  bless  us  with  their  wisdom, 
not  one  of  them,  with  his  recorded  opinions  on  Slavery, 
could  receive  a  nomination  for  the  Presidency,  from  a 
National  Convention  of  either  of  the  great  political 
parties,  nor,  stranger  still,  could  he  be  confirmed  by 
the  Senate  for  any  political  function  under  the  Govern- 
ment. Had  this  test  prevailed  in  earlier  days,  Wash- 
ington could  not  have  been  made  Commander-in-Chief 
of  the  American  army ;  Jefferson  could  not  have  taken 
his  place  on  the  Committee  to  draft  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  ;  and  Franklin  could  not  have  been  sent 
to  France  with  the  commission  of  the  infant  republic, 
to  secure  the  invaluable  alliance  of  that  powerful  king- 
dom. 

In  view  of  these  things,  our  duties  are  manifest. 
First  and  foremost,  the  Slave  Power  itself  must  be 
overthrown.  Lord  Chatham  once  exclaimed,  in  stirring 
language,  that  the  time  had  been  when  he  was  content 
to  bnng  France  to  her  knees ;  now  he  would  not  stop 
till  he  had  laid  her  on  her  back.  Nor  can  we  be  con- 
tent with  less  in  our  warfare.  We  must  not  stop  till 


AT    THE    PRESENT    CRISIS.  395 

we  have  laid  the  Slave  Power  on  its  back.  (Prolonged 
cheers.)  And,  fellow-citizens,  permit  me  to  say,  not 
till  then  will  the  Free  States  be  absolved  from  all 
political  responsibility  for  Slavery,  and  relieved  from 
that  corrupt  spirit  of  compromise  which  now  debases, 
at  once,  their  politics  and  their  religion ;  nor  till  then 
will  there  be  any  repose  for  the  country.  (Immense 
cheering.)  Indemnity  for  the  past,  and  security  for 
the  future,  must  be  our  watchwords.  (Applause.) 
But  these  can  be  obtained  only  when  Slavery  is  dis- 
possessed of  its  present  vantage-ground,  by  driving  it 
back  exclusively  within  the  limits  of  the  States,  and 
putting  the  National  Government  everywhere  within 
its  constitutional  sphere,  openly,  actively  and  perpetu- 
ally, on  the  side  of  Freedom.  The  consequences  of 
this  change  of  policy  would  be  of  incalculable  and 
far-reaching  beneficence.  Not  only  would  Freedom 
become  national  and  Slavery  sectional,  as  was  intended 
by  our  fathers  ;  but  the  National  Government  would 
become  the  mighty  instrument  and  spokesman  of 
Freedom,  as  it  is  now  the  mighty  instrument  and 
spokesman  of  Slavery.  Its  powers,  its  treasury,  its 
patronage,  would  all  be  turned,  in  harmony  with  the 
Constitution,  to  promote  Freedom.  The  Committees  of 
Congress,  where  Slavery  now  rules,  —  Congress  itself, 
and  the  Cabinet  also,  —  would  all  be  organized  for 
Freedom.  The  hypocritical  disguise  or  renunciation  of 
Anti- Slavery  sentiment  would  cease  to  be  necessary 
for  the  sake  of  political  preferment ;  and  the  Slavehold- 
ing  Oligarchy,  banished  from  the  National  Government, 
and  despoiled  of  its  ill-gotten  political  consequence, 
without  ability  to  punish  or  reward,  would  cease  to  be 
feared,  either  at  the  North  or  the  South,  until  at  last 


396  THE    DUTIES    OF    MASSACHUSETTS 

the  citizens  of  the  Slave  States,  of  whom  a  large 
portion  have  no  interest  in  Slavery,  would  demand 
Emancipation ;  and  the  great  work  would  commence. 
Such  is  the  obvious  course  of  things.  To  the  over- 
throw of  the  Slave  Power  we  are  thus  summoned  by 
a  double  call,  one  political  and  the  other  philan- 
thropic ;  first,  to  remove  an  oppressive  tyranny  from 
the  National  Government,  and  secondly,  to  open  the 
gates  of  Emancipation  in  the  Slave  States.  (Loud  ap- 
plause.) 

But  while  keeping  this  great  purpose  in  view,  we 
must  not  forget  details.  The  existence  of  Slavery  any 
where  within  the  National  jurisdiction  —  in  the  Terri- 
tories —  in  the  District  of  Columbia  —  or  on  the  high 
seas  beneath  the  national  flag,  is  an  unconstitutional 
usurpation,  which  must  be  opposed.  The  Fugitive 
Slave  Bill,  monstrous  in  cruelty,  as  in  unconstitution- 
ality,  is  a  usurpation,  which  must  be  opposed.  The 
admission  of  new  Slave  States,  from  whatsoever  quar- 
ter, from  Texas  or  Cuba  (applause),  Utah  or  New 
Mexico,  must  be  opposed.  And  to  every  scheme  of 
Slavery,  whether  in  Cuba,  or  Mexico,  —  on  the  high 
seas  in  opening  the  slave-trade  —  in  the  West  Indies 
—  the  Valley  of  the  Amazon,  —  whether  accomplished 
or  merely  plotted,  whether  pending  or  in  prospect,  we 
must  send  forth  an  EVERLASTING  NO  !  (Long  con- 
tined  applause.)  Such  is  the  duty  of  Massachusetts, 
without  hesitation  or  compromise. 

Thus  far  I  have  spoken  of  our  duties  in  national 
matters  ;  but  there  are  other  duties  of  pressing  im- 
portance, here  at  home,  which  must  not  be  forgotten 
or  postponed.  It  is  often  said  that  "  charity  should 
begin  at  home."  JJetter  say,  that  charity  should  begin 


A.T    THE    PBESENT    CRISIS.  397 

everywhere.  But  while  contending  with  the  Slave 
Power  on  the  broad  field  of  national  politics,  we  must 
not  forget  the  duty  of  protecting  the  liberty  of  all  who 
tread  the  soil  of  Massachusetts.  (Immense  cheering.) 
Early  in  colonial  history,  Massachusetts  set  her  face 
against  Slavery.  At  the  head  of  her  Bill  of  Rights 
she  solemnly  asserted,  that  all  men  are  born  free  and 
equal ;  and  in  the  same  declaration,  surrounded  the 
liberties  of  all  within  her  borders  by  the  inestimable 
rights  of  trial  by  jury  and  Habeas  Corpus.  But  recent 
events  on  her  own  soil  have  taught  the  necessity  of  new 
safeguards  to  these  great  principles,  —  to  the  end  that 
Massachusetts  may  not  be  a  vassal  of  South  Carolina 
and  Virginia  —  that  the  Slave-hunter  may  not  range 
at  will  among  us,  and  that  the  liberties  of  all  may  not 
be  violated  with  impunity. 

But  I  am  admonished  that  I  must  not  dwell  longer 
on  these  things.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  our  duties,  in 
National  and  State  affairs,  are  identical,  and  may  be 
described  by  the  same  formula :  In  the  one  case  to  put 
the  National  Government,  in  all  its  departments,  and 
in  the  other  case  the  State  Government,  in  all  its 
departments,  openly,  actively  and  perpetually,  on  the 
side  of  Freedom.  (Loud  applause.) 

Having  considered  what  our  duties  are,  the  question 
now  presses  upon  us,  how  shall  they  be  performed  ? 
By  what  agency,  by  what  instrumentality,  or  in  what 
way  ? 

The  most  obvious  way  is  by  choosing  men  to  repre- 
sent us  in  the  National  Government,  and  also  at  home, 
who  shall  recognize  these  duties  and  be  ever  loyal  to 
them  (cheers)  ;  men  who  at  Washington  will  not 
34 


398  THE    DUTIES    OF    MASSACHUSETTS 

shrink  from  the  conflict  with  Slavery,  and  also  other 
men,  who,  at  home  in  Massachusetts  will  not  shrink 
from  the  same  conflict  when  the  Slave-hunter  appears. 
(Loud  applaiise,  and  cries  of  "good,"  "good.")  But 
in  the  choice  of  men,  we  are  driven  to  the  organization 
of  parties  ;  and  here  the  question  arises,  by  what  form 
of  organization,  or  by  what  party,  can  these  men  be 
best  secured  ?  Surely  not  by  the  Democratic  party,  as 
at  present  constituted  (laughter)  ;  though  if  this  party 
were  true  to  its  name,  pregnant  with  human  rights,  it 
would  leave  little  to  be  desired.  In  this  party  there 
are  doubtless  individuals  who  are  anxious  to  do  all  in 
their  power  against  Slavery  ;  but,  indulge  me  in  say- 
ing that,  so  long  as  they  continue  members  of  a  party 
which  upholds  the  Nebraska  Bill,  they  can  do  very 
little.  (Applause  and  laughter.)  What  may  we  ex- 
pect from  the  Whig  party  ?  (A  voice  —  Resolutions.) 
If  more  may  be  expected  from  the  Whig  party  than 
the  Democratic  party,  candor  must  attribute  much  of 
the  difference  to  the  fact  that  the  Whigs  are  out  of 
power,  while  the  Democrats  are  in  power.  (Long  con- 
tinued cheers.)  If  the  cases  were  reversed,  and  the 
Whigs  were  in  power,  as  in  1850,  I  fear  that,  notwith- 
standing the  ardor  of  individuals,  and  the  Resolutions 
of  Conventions  —  (great  laughter)  —  made,  I  fear,  too 
often  merely  to  be  broken  —  the  party  might  be  brought 
to  sustain  an  outrage  as  great  as  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Bill !  (Laughter  and  applause.)  But  without  dwell- 
ing on  these  things,  (to  which  I  allude  with  diffidence, 
and,  I  trust,  in  no  uncharitable  temper,  or  partisan 
spirit,)  I  desire  to  say  that  no  party,  which  calls 
itself  national,  according  to  the  common  acceptance  of 
the  word,  —  which  leans  upon  a  slaveholding  wing, 


AT    THE    PBESENT    CRISIS.  399 

(cheers)  or  is  in  combination  with  slaveholders,  — 
(cheers)  can  at  this  time  be  true  to  Massachusetts. 
(Great  applause.)  And  the  reason  is  obvious.  It 
can  be  presented  so  as  to  cleave  the  most  common 
understanding.  The  essential  element  of  such  a  party, 
whether  declared  or  concealed,  is  Compromise  ;  but  our 
duties  require  all  constitutional  opposition  to  Slavery 
and  the  Slave  Power,  without  Compromise.  ("  That's 
it,"  "good,"  "good.")  It  is  difficult,  then,  to  see 
how  we  can  rely  upon  the  Whig  party. 

To  the  true-hearted,  magnanimous  men  who  are 
ready  to  place  Freedom  above  Party,  and  their  Country 
above  Politicians,  I  appeal.  (Immense  cheering.) 
Let  them  leave  the  old  parties,  and  blend  in  an  organ- 
ization, which,  without  compromise,  will  maintain  the 
good  cause  surely  to  the  end.  Here  in  Massachusetts 
a  large  majority  of  the  people  concur  in  sentiment  on 
Slavery  ;  a  large  majority  desire  the  overthrow  of  the 
Slave  Power.  It  becomes  them  not  to  scatter  their 
votes,  but  to  unite  in  one  firm,  consistent  phalanx, 
(applause,)  whose  triumph  shall  constitute  an  epoch  of 
Freedom,  not  only  in  this  Commonwealth,  but  through- 
out the  land.  Such  an  organization  is  now  presented 
by  this  Republican  Convention,  which,  according  to 
the  resolutions  by  which  it  is  convoked,  is  to  co-operate 
with  the  friends  of  Freedom  in  other  States.  (Cheers.) 
As  Republicans  we  go  forth  to  encounter  the  Oligarchs 
of  Slavery.  (Great  applause.) 

Through  this  organization  we  may  most  certainly 
secure  the  election  of  men,  who,  unseduced  and  un- 
terrified,  will  uphold  at  Washington  the  principles  of 
Freedom  and  who  also  here  at  home,  in  our  own  com- 
munity, by  example,  influence  and  vote,  will  help  to 


400  THE    DUTIES    OF    MASSACHUSETTS 

invigorate  Massachusetts.  Indeed,  I  might  go  further 
and  say,  that,  by  no  other  organization  can  we  reason- 
ably hope  to  obtain  such  men,  unless  in  rare  and  ex- 
ceptional cases. 

Men  are  but  instruments.  It  will  not  be  enough 
merely  to  choose  those  who  are  loyal.  Other  things 
must  be  done  here  at  home.  In  the  first  place,  all  the 
existing  laws  for  the  protection  of  human  freedom 
must  be  rigorously  enforced  ;  (applause,  and  cries  of 
"  good,")  and,  since  these  have  been  found  inadequate, 
new  laws  for  this  purpose,  within  the  limits  of  the 
constitution,  must  be  enacted.  Massachusetts  certainly 
might  do  well  in  following  Vermont,  which,  by  a 
special  law,  has  placed  the  fugitive  slave  under  the 
safeguard  of  trial  by  jury,  and  the  writ  of  habeas  cor- 
pus. But  a  legislature  true  to  Freedom,  will  not  fail 
in  remedies.  (Applause.)  A  simple  prohibition, 
declaring  that  no  person,  holding  the  commission  of 
Massachusetts,  as  a  Justice  of  the  Peace,  or  other 
magistrate,  should  assume  to  act  as  a  Slave-hunting 
Commissoner,  or  as  counsel  of  any  Slave-hunter,  under 
some  proper  penalty,  would  go  far  to  render  the  exist- 
ing Slave  Bill  inoperative.  (Applause.)  There  are  not 
many,  so  fond  of  this  base  trade  as  to  continue  in  it 
when  the  Commonwealth  has  thus  set  upon  it  a  legisla- 
tive brand. 

But  besides  more  rigorous  legislation,  Public  Opinion 
must  be  invoked  to  step  forward  and  throw  over  the 
fugitive  its  protecting  panoply.  A  Slave-hunter  will 
then  be  a  by- word  and  reproach ;  and  all  his  instru- 
ments, especially  every  one  who  volunteers  in  this 
vileness,  without  any  positive  obligation  of  law,  will 
naturally  be  regarded  as  a  part  of  his  pack,  and  share 


AT    IHE    PRESENT    CEISIS.  401 

the  ignominy  of  the  chief  hunter.  (Laughter  and 
cheers.)  And  now,  from  authentic  example,  drawn 
out  of  recent  history,  learn  how  the  Slave-hunter  may 
be  palsied  by  contrition.  I  take  the  story  from  the 
late  letters  on  Neapolitan  affairs  by  the  eminent  Eng- 
lish statesman,  Mr.  Gladstone  ;  and  he  has  copied  it 
from  an  Italian  writer.  A  most  successful  member  of 
the  Italian  police,  Bolza,  of  the  hateful  tribe,  known 
as  sbirri,  whose  official  duties  involved  his  own  per- 
sonal degradation  and  the  loathing  "of  others,  has  left 
a  record  of  the  acute  sense  which  even  such  a  man 
retained  of  his  shame.  "  I  absolutely  forbid  my  heirs," 
says  this  penitent  official,  "  to  allow  any  mark  of  what- 
ever kind,  to  be  placed  over  the  spot  of  my  burial ; 
much  more  any  inscription  or  epitaph.  I  recommend 
my  dearly  beloved  wife  to  impress  upon  my  children 
the  injunction,  that,  in  soliciting  any  employment  from 
the  Government,  they  shall  ask  for  it  elsewhere  than 
in  the  executive  police,  and  not,  unless  under  extraordi- 
nary circumstances,  to  give  her  consent  to  the  marriage 
of  any  of  my  daughters  with  a  member  of  that  service." 
Thus  testifies  the  Italian  instrument  of  legal  wrong. 
Let  public  opinion  here  in  Massachusetts  once  put 
forth  its  Christian  might,  and  every  instrument  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Act  will  feel  a  kindred  shame.  (Great 
applause.) 

But  it  is  sometimes  gravely  urged,  that  since  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  affirmed  the 
constitutionality  of  the  Fugitive  Act,  there  only  re- 
mains to  us  in  all  places,  whether  in  public  station  or 
in  private  life,  the  duty  of  absolute  submission.  Yes, 
sir,  that  is  the  assumption,  which  you  will  perceive 
is  applicable  to  the  humblest  citizen,  —  who  holds 
34* 


402  THE    DUTIES    OF    MASSACHUSETTS 

no  office  and  has  taken  no  oath  to  support  the  Consti- 
tution, —  as  well  as  to  the  public  servant,  who  is  under 
the  special  obligations  of  an  official  oath.  Now,  with- 
out stopping  to  consider  the  soundness  of  their  judg- 
ment, affirming  the  constitutionality  of  this  Act,  let 
me  say  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as 
I  understand  it,  exacts  no  such  passive  obedience. 
And,  in  taking  the  oath  to  support  the  Constitution,  I 
have  sworn  to  support  it  as  I  understand  it,  and  not  as 
other  men  understand  it.  (Loud  applause.  When  it 
had  subsided,  it  was  followed  by  three  rousing  cheers 
for  Sumner.) 

In  adopting  this  rule,  which  was  first  authoritatively 
enunciated  by  Andrew  Jackson,  when,  as  President  of 
the  United  States,  in  the  face  of  the  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  he  asserted  the  unconstitutionality  of 
the  Bank,  I  desire  to  be  understood  as  not  acting 
hastily.  Let  me  add,  that  if  it  needed  other  authority 
in  its  support,  it  has  that  also  of  the  distinguished 
Cabinet  by  which  he  was  then  surrounded,  among 
whom  were  that  unsurpassed  jurist,  Edward  Livings- 
ton, Secretary  of  State,  and  that  still  living  exemplar 
of  careful  learning  and  wisdom,  Roger  B.  Taney,  then 
Attorney  General,  now  Chief  Justice  of  the  United 
States.  But  beyond  these,  it  has  the  unquestionable 
authority  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  by  whom,  as  President 
of  the  United  States,  it  was  asserted  again  and  again 
as  a  rule  of  conduct.  Thus  if  any  person  at  this  day 
be  disposed  to  deal  sharply  with  me  on  account  of  the 
support  which  I  now  most  conscientiously  give  to  this 
rule,  let  him  remember  that  his  thrusts  will  pierce  not 
only  myself,  the  humblest  of  its  supporters,  but  also 
the  great  fame  of  Andrew  Jackson  and  of  Thomas 


AT    THE    PRESENT    CRISIS.  403 

Jefferson  —  patriots  both  of  eminent  life  and  authority, 
on  whose  Atlantean  shoulders  this  principle  of  Consti- 
tutional law  will  ever  firmly  rest. 

But  reason  here  is  in  harmony  with  authority.  From 
the  necessity  of  the  case  I  must  swear  to  support  the 
Constitution,  either  as  I  do  understand  it,  or  as  I  do 
NOT  understand  it.  (Laughter.)  But  the  absurdity 
of  dangling  on  the  latter  horn  of  the  dilemma,  com- 
pels me  to  take  the  former  —  and  there  is  a  natural 
end  of  the  argument.  (Great  laughter  and  cheers.) 
Is  there  a  person  in  Congress  or  out  of  it,  in  the 
National  Government  or  State  Government,  who,  when 
this  inevitable  alternative  is  presented  to  him,  will 
venture  to  say  that  he  swears  to  support  the  Constitu- 
tion as  he  does  not  understand  it  ?  (Laughter  and 
applause.)  The  supposition  is  too  preposterous.  But 
let  me  ask  gentlemen  who  are  disposed  to  abandon 
their  own  understanding  of  the  Constitution,  to  submit 
their  conscience  to  the  standard  of  other  men,  by  whose 
understanding  do  they  swear  ?  Surely  not  by  that  of 
the  President.  This  is  not  alleged.  But  by  the 
understanding  of  the  Supreme  Court.  In  other  words, 
to  this  Court,  consisting  at  present  of  nine  persons,  is 
committed  a  power  of  fastening  such  interpretation  as 
they  see  fit  upon  any  part  of  the  Constitution  —  adding 
to  it  or  subtracting  from  it  —  or  positively  varying  its 
requirements  —  actually  making  and  unmaking  the 
Constitution  ;  and  all  good  citizens  must  bow  to  their 
work  as  of  equal  authority  with  the  original  instrument, 
ratified  by  solemn  votes  of  the  whole  people  !  (Great 
applause.)  If  this  be  so,  then  the  oath  to  support  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  hardly  less  offen- 
sive than  the  famous  "  et  cetera "  oath  devised  by 


404  THE    DUTIES    OF    MASSACHUSETTS 

Archbishop  Laud,  in  which  the  subject  swore  to  cer- 
tain specified  things,  with  an  "  &c  "  added.  Such  an 
oath  I  have  not  taken.  (Good,  good.) 

The  power  of  our  Supreme  Court  is  great,  and  its 
sphere  is  vast ;  but  there  are  limits  to  its  power  and 
its  sphere.  According  to  the  words  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, "  the  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  in 
law  and  equity,  arising  under  the  Constitution,  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  and  Treaties  ;  "  but  it  by 
no  means  follows,  that  the  interpretation  of  the  Con- 
stitution which  may  be  incident  to  the  trial  of  these 
"  cases  "  is  final.  Of  course,  the  judgment  in  the 
"  case  "  actually  pending  is  final,  as  the  settlement  of 
a  controversy,  for  weal  or  woe  to  the  litigating  parties ; 
but  as  a  precedent  it  is  not  final  even  on  the  Supreme 
Court  itself.  When  cited  afterwards  it  will  be  re- 
garded with  respect  as  an  interpretation  of  the  Consti- 
tution, and,  if  nothing  appears  against  it,  of  controlling 
authority ;  but,  at  any  day,  in  any  litigation,  at  the 
trial  of  any  "  case,"  it  will  be  within  the  unquestion- 
able competency  of  the  Court  to  review  its  own  decision, 
so  far  as  it  establishes  any  interpretation  of  the  Con- 
stitution. But  if  the  Court  itself  be  not  constrained 
by  its  own  precedents,  how  can  the  co-ordinate  branches 
of  the  Government,  who  are  respectively  under  oath  to 
support  the  Constitution,  and  who,  like  the  Court 
itself,  may  be  called  within  their  respective  spheres, 
incidentally  to  interpret  the  Constitution,  be  constrained 
by  them  ?  In  both  instances,  the  power  to  interpret 
the  Constitution  is  simply  incident  to  other  principal 
duties,  as  the  trial  of  "  cases,"  the  making  of  laws,  or 
the  administration  of  Government,  and  it  seems  as 
plainly  incident  to  a  "  case  "  of  legislation  or  of  ad- 


AT    THE    PRESENT    CBISIS.  405 

ministration,  as  to  one  of  the  "  cases  "  of  litigation. 
And  on  this  view  I  shall  act  with  entire  confidence 
under  the  oath  which  I  have  taken.  ;  *  •  < 

For  myself,  let  me  say,  that  I  hold  judges,  and 
especially  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  country,  in  much 
respect ;  hut  I  am  too  familiar  with  the  history  of 
judicial  proceedings  to  regard  them  with  any  super- 
stitious reverence.  (Sensation.)  Judges  are  but  men, 
and  in  all  ages  have  shown  a  full  share  of  human 
frailty.  Alas  !  alas  !  the  worst  crimes  of  history  have 
been  perpetrated  under  their  sanction.  The  blood  of 
martyrs  and  of  patriots,  crying  from  the  ground,  sum- 
mons them  to  judgment.  It  was  a  judicial  tribunal 
which  condemned  Socrates  to  drink  the  fatal  hemlock, 
and  which  pushed  the  Saviour  barefoot  over  the  pave- 
ments of  Jerusalem,  bending  beneath  his  cross.  It 
was  a  judicial  tribunal  which,  against  the  testimony 
and  entreaties  of  her  father,  surrendered  the  fair  Vir- 
ginia as  a  slave ;  which  arrested  the  teachings  of  the 
great  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  and  sent  him  in  bonds 
from  Judea  to  Rome  ;  which,  in  the  name  of  the  Old 
Religion,  adjudged  the  saints  and  fathers  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  to  death,  in  all  its  most  dreadful  forms ; 
and  which,  afterwards,  in  the  name  of  the  New  Religion, 
enforced  the  tortures  of  the  Inquisition,  amidst  the 
shrieks  and  agonies  of  its  victims,  while  it  compelled 
Galileo  to  declare  —  in  solemn  denial  of  the  great 
truth  he  had  disclosed  —  that  the  earth  did  not  move 
round  the  sun.  It  was  a  judicial  tribunal  which,  in 
France,  during  the  long  reign  of  her  monarchs,  lent 
itself  to  be  the  instrument  of  every  tyranny,  as  during 
the  brief  reign  of  terror  it  did  not  hesitate  to  stand 
forth  the  unpitying  accessary  of  the  unpitying  guillo- 


40<5  THE    DUTIES    OF    MASSACHUSETTS 

tine.  Ay,  sir,  it  was  a  judicial  tribunal  in  England, 
surrounded  by  all  the  forms  of  law,  which  sanctioned 
every  despotic  caprice  of  Henry  the  Eighth,  from  the 
unjust  divorce  of  his  queen,  to  the  beheading  of  Sir 
Thomas  More  ;  which  lighted  the  fires  of  persecution 
that  glowed  at  Oxford  and  Smithfield,  over  the  cinders 
of  Latimer,  Ridley  and  John  Rogers  ;  which,  after 
elaborate  argument,  upheld  the  fatal  tyranny  of  ship 
money  against  the  patriot  resistance  of  Hampden ; 
which,  in  defiance  of  justice  and  humanity,  sent  Sidney 
and  Russell  to  the  block  ;  which  persistently  enforced 
the  laws  of  Conformity  that  our  Puritan  Fathers  per- 
sistently refused  to  obey  ;  and  which,  afterwards,  with 
Jeffries  on  the  bench,  crimsoned  the  pages  of  English 
history  with  massacre  and  murder  —  even  with  the 
blood  of  innocent  woman.  Ay,  sir,  and  it  was  a 
judicial  tribunal  in  our  own  country,  surrounded  by 
all  the  forms  of  law,  which  hung  witches  at  Salem  — 
which  affirmed  the  constitutionality  of  the  Stamp  Act, 
while  it  admonished  "jurors  and  the  people  "  to  obey 
—  and  which  now,  in  our  day,  has  lent  its  sanction  to 
the  unutterable  atrocity  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill. 
(Long  continued  applause,  and  three  cheers  for  Sum- 
ner.) 

Of  course  the  judgments  of  courts  are  of  binding 
authority  upon  inferior  tribunals  and  their  own  execu- 
tive officers,  whose  virtue  does  not  prompt  them  to 
resign  rather  than  aid  in  the  execution  of  an  unjust 
mandate.  Over  all  citizens,  whether  in  public  or  private 
station,  they  will  naturally  exert,  as  precedents,  a  com- 
manding influence.  This  I  admit.  But  no  man,  who 
is  not  lost  to  self-respect,  and  ready  to  abandon  that 
manhood  which  is  shown  in  the  Heaven-directed  coun- 


AT    THE    PBESENT    CEISIS.  40* 

tenance,  will  voluntarily  aid  in  enforcing  a  judgment 
which,  in  his  conscience,  he  believes  to  be  wrong 
Surely  he  will  not  hesitate  to  "  obey  God  rather  than 
man,"  and  calmly  abide  the  perils  which  he  may  pro- 
voke. Not  lightly,  not  rashly  will  he  take  the  grave 
responsibility  of  open  dissent ;  but  if  the  occasion 
requires,  he  will  not  fail.  Pains  and  penalties  may 
be  endured,  but  wrong  must  not  be  done.  (Cheers.) 
"  I  cannot  obey,  but  I  can  suffer,"  was  the  exclamation 
of  the  author  of  Pilgrim's  Progress,  when  imprisoned 
for  disobedience  to  an  earthly  statute.  Better  suffer 
injustice  than  do  it.  Better  be  even  the  poor  slave, 
returned  to  bondage,  than  the  unhappy  Commissioner. 
(Applause  and  sensation.) 

The  whole  dogma  of  passive  obedience  must  be  re- 
jected ;  — in  whatever  guise  it  may  assume,  and  under 
whatever  alias  it  may  skulk ;  whether  in  the  tyrannical 
usurpations  of  king,  parliament,  or  judicial  tribunal ; 
whether  in  the  exploded  theories  of  Sir  Robert  Filmer, 
or  the  rampant  assumptions  of  the  partisans  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Bill.  The  rights  of  the  civil  power 
are  limited ;  there  are  things  beyond  its  province ; 
there  are  matters  out  of  its  control ;  there  are  cases  in 
which  the  faithful  citizen  may  say  —  ay,  must  say  — 
"  I  will  not  obey."  No  man  now  responds  to  the 
words  of  Shakespeare,  "  If  a  king  bid  a  man  be  a 
villain,  he  is  bound,  by  the  indenture  of  his  oath,  to 
be  one."  Nor  will  any  prudent  reasoner,  who  duly 
considers  the  rights  of  conscience,  claim  for  any  earthly 
magistrate  or  tribunal,  howsoever  styled,  a  power 
which,  in  this '  age  of  civilization  and  liberty,  the 
loftiest  monarch  of  a  Christian  throne,  wearing  on 


408  THE    DUTIES    OF    MASSACHUSETTS 

his  brow  "  the  round  and  top  of  sovereignty"  dare  not 
assert. 

On  this  two-fold  conclusion  I  rest,  and  do  not  doubt 
the  final  result.  The  citizen,  who  has  sworn  to  support 
the  Constitution,  is  constrained  to  support  it  simply  as 
he  understands  it.  The  citizen,  whose  private  life  has 
kept  him  from  assuming  the  obligations  of  the  oath, 
may  bravely  set  at  naught  the  unjust  mandate  of  a 
magistrate,  and,  in  so  doing,  he  will  serve  justice, 
though  he  may  expose  himself  to  stern  penalties. 

Fellow  Citizens  of  Massachusetts  :  —  Our  own  local 
history  is  not  without  encouragement.  In  early  colo- 
nial days,  the  law  against  witchcraft,  now  so  abhorrent 
to  reason  and  conscience,  was  regarded  as  constitutional 
and  binding,  precisely  as  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  not 
less  abhorrent  to  reason  and  conscience,  has  been  re- 
garded as  constitutional  and  binding.  The  Supreme 
Court  of  the  Province,  with  able  judges,  whose  names 
are  entwined  with  our  history,  enforced  this  law  at 
Salem,  by  the  execution  of  fourteen  persons  as  witches ; 
precisely  as  petty  magistrates,  acting  under  the  sanction 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  also 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts,  have  enforced 
the  Fugitive  Act,  by  the  reduction  of  two  human 
beings  to  Slavery.  The  clergy  of  Massachusetts,  par- 
ticularly near  Boston,  and  also  Harvard  College,  were 
for  the  law.  "  Witchcraft,"  shouted  Cotton  Mather  from 
the  pulpit,  "is  the  most  nefandous  high  treason" —  "  a 
capital  crime "  —  even  as  opposition  to  the  Fugitive 
Act  has  been  denounced  as  "  treason."  (Laughter.) 

But  the  law  against  witchcraft  was  not  triumphant 
long.  The  General  Court  of  the  Province  first  became 
penitent,  and  asked  pardon  of  God  for  "  all  the  errors 


AT    THE    PRESENT    OKISIS.  409 

of  His  servants  and  people  in  the  late  tragedy."  Jury- 
men united  in  condemning  and  lamenting  the  delusion 
to  which  they  had  yielded  under  the  decision  of  the 
judges,  and  acknowledged  that  they  had  brought  the 
reproach  of  wrongful  bloodshed  on  our  native  land. 
Sewall,  one  of  the  judges,  whose  name  lives  freshly  in 
the  liberty-loving  character  of  his  descendant,  [Hon. 
S.  E.  Sewall,]  (applause,)  and  who  had  presided  at 
the  trials,  stood  up  in  his  place  at  church,  before  the 
congregation,  and  implored  the  prayers  of  the  people 
"that  the  errors  he  had  committed  might  not  be 
visited  by  the  judgments  of  an  avenging  God  on  his 
country,  his  family,  or  himself."  And  now,  in  a 
manuscript  diary  of  this  departed  judge,  may  be  read, 
on  the  margin  against  the  contemporary  record  of  these 
trials,  in  his  own  handwriting,  words  of  Latin  interjec- 
tion and  sorrow  :  Voe,  vx,  vos.  Woe  !  woe !  woe  !  (Sen- 
sation.) 

The  parallel  between  the  law  against  witchcraft,  and 
the  Fugitive  Act  is  not  yet  complete.  It  remains  for 
our  Legislature,  the  successor  of  that  original  General 
Court,  to  lead  the  penitential  march.  (Laughter.)  In 
the  slave  cases  there  have  been  no  jurymen  to  recant 
(laughter)  ;  and  it  is  too  much,  perhaps,  to  expect  any 
magistrate  who  has  sanctioned  the  cruelty,  to  imitate 
the  magnanimity  of  other  days  by  public  repentance. 
But  it  is  not  impossible  that  future  generations  may 
be  permitted  to  read,  in  some  newly  exhumed  diary  or 
letter,  by  one  of  these  unhappy  functionaries,  words 
of  woe  not  unlike  those  which  were  wrung  from  the 
soul  of  Sewall.  (Sensation.) 

And  now,  fellow- citizens,  one  word  in  conclusion : 
35 


410  THE    DUTIES    OF    MASSACHUSETTS 

Be  of  good  cheer.  ("  That's  it.")  I  know  well  the 
difficulties  and  responsibilities  of  the  contest ;  but  not 
on  this  account  do  I  bate  a  jot  of  heart  or  hope.  (Ap- 
plause.) At  this  time,  in  our  country,  there  is  little 
else  to  tempt  into  public  life  an  honest  man,  who 
wishes,  by  something  that  he  has  done,  to  leave  the 
world  better  than  he  found  it.  There  is  little  else 
which  can  afford  any  of  those  satisfactions  which  an 
honest  man  can  covet.  Nor  is  there  any  cause  which 
so  surely  promises  final  success.  There  is  nothing 
good  —  not  a  breathing  of  the  common  wind  —  which 
is  not  on  our  side.  Ours,  too,  are  those  great  allies 
described  by  the  poet  — 


"  exultations,  agonies, 


And  love,  and  man's  unconquerable  mind." 

And  there  are  favoring  circumstances  peculiar  to  the 
present  moment.  By  the  passage  of  the  Nebraska 
Bill,  and  the  Boston  kidnapping  case,  the  tyranny  of 
the  Slave  Power  has  become  unmistakably  manifest, 
while,  at  the  same  time,  all  compromises  with  Slavery 
are  happily  dissolved,  so  that  Freedom  now  stands 
face  to  face  with  its  foe.  The  pulpit,  too,  released 
from  ill-omened  silence,  now  thunders  for  Freedom,  as 
in  the  olden  time.  (Cheers.)  It  belongs  to  Massa- 
chusetts —  nurse  of  the  men  and  principles  which 
made  the  earliest  Revolution  —  to  vow  herself  anew 
to  her  ancient  faith,  as  she  lifts  herself  to  the  great 
struggle.  Her  place  now,  as  of  old,  is  in  the  van,  at 
the  head  of  the  battle.  (Sensation.)  But  to  sustain 
this  advanced  position  with  proper  inflexibility,  three 
things  are  needed  by  our  beloved  Commonwealth,  in 
all  her  departments  of  government  —  the  same  three 


AT    THE    PRESENT    CRISIS.  411 

things,  which  once  in  Faneuil  Hall,  I  ventured  to  say 
were  needed  by  every  representative  of  the  North  at 
Washington.  The  first  is  backbone  (applause)  ;  the 
second  is  BACKBONE  (renewed  applause)  ;  and  the 
third  is  BACKBONE.  (Long  continued  cheering, 
and  three  cheers  for  "backbone.")  With  these, 
Massachusetts  will  be  respected,  and  felt  as  a  positive 
force  in  the  National  Government  (applause),  while  at 
home,  on  her  own  soil,  free  at  last  in  reality  as  in 
name  (applause),  all  her  people,  from  the  islands  of 
Boston  to  Berkshire  hills,  and  from  the  sands  of  Barn- 
stable  to  the  northern  line,  will  unite  in  the  cry : 

"  No  slave  hunt  in  our  borders  —  no  pirate  on  our  strand; 
No  fetter  on  the  Bay  State;  no  slave  upon  her  land." 


THE  POSITION  AND  DUTIES  OP  THE  MERCHANT, 
ILLUSTRATED  BY  THE  LIFE  OF  GRANVILLE 
SHARP. 

*, 

AN  ADDRESS  BEFORE  THE  MERCANTILE  LIBRARY  ASSOCIATION 
OF  BOSTON,  ON  THE  EVENING  OF  15TH  NOVEMBER,  1854. 


MR.  PRESIDENT,  AND  GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  MERCANTILE  LIBRARY 
ASSOCIATION  : 

I  HAVE  been  honored  by  an  invitation  to  deliver  an 
address,  introductory  to  one  of  the  annual  courses  of 
lectures,  which  your  Association  bountifully  contributes 
to  the  pastime,  instruction  and  elevation  of  our  com- 
munity. You  know,  sir,  something  of  the  reluctance 
with  which,  embarrassed  by  other  cares,  I  undertook 
this  service,  —  yielding  to  a  kindly  and  persistent  pres- 
sure, which  only  a  nature  sterner  than  mine  could  resist. 
And  now  I  am  here  to  perform  what  I  promised. 

I  am  to  address  the  Mercantile  Library  Association 
of  Boston,  numbering,  according  to  your  last  report, 
two  thousand  and  seventy-eight  members,  and  possess- 
ing a  library  of  more  than  fifteen  thousand  volumes. 
With  so  many  members  and  so  many  books,  yours  is 
an  institution  of  positive  power.  Two  distinct  features 
appear  in  its  name.  It  is  primarily  an  association  of 
persons  in  mercantile  pursuits  ;  and  it  is,  next,  an, 
association  for  the  improvement  of  its  members,  par- 

[412] 


POSITION    AND  DUTIES   OF    THE    MERCHANT.    413 

ticularly  through  books.  In  either  particular,  it  is 
entitled  to  regard.  But  it  possesses  yet  another  fea- 
ture, more  interesting  still,  which  does  not  appear  in 
its  name.  It  is  an  association  of  YOUNG  MEN,  with 
hearts  yet  hospitable  to  generous  words,  and  with  re- 
solves not  yet  vanquished  by  the  trials  and  temptations 
of  life.  Especially  does  this  last  consideration  fill  me 
with  a  deep  sense  at  once  of  the  privilege  and  respon- 
sibility to  which  you  have  summoned  me.  I  am  aware 
that,  according  to  usage,  the  whole  circle  of  knowledge, 
.  thought  and  aspiration,  is  open  to  the  speaker ;  but  as 
often  as  I  have  revolved  the  occasion  in  my  mind  — 
even  as  the  Greek  poet,  who  hoped  to  sing  of  Atreus, 
was  brought  back  to  the  strain  of  love  —  I  have  been 
brought  back  to  a  consideration  of  the  peculiar  character 
of  your  association ;  and  I  have  found  myself  unwilling 
to  touch  any  theme  which  was  not  addressed  to  them 
especially  as  merchants. 

I  might  fitly  speak  to  you  of  books  ;  and  here,  while 
undertaking  to  consider  the  principles  which  should 
govern  the  student  in  his  reading,  it  would  be  pleasant 
to  dwell  on  the  profitable  delights,  better  than  a 
"  shower  of  cent,  per  cent.  ; "  on  the  society,  better 
than  fashion  or  dissipation  ;  and  on  that  completeness 
of  satisfaction,  outvying  the  possessions  of  wealth 
and  power,  and  making  "  my  library  dukedom  large 
enough ;  "  all  of  which  are  found  in  books.  But  I 
leave  this  theme.  I  might  also  fitly  speak  to  you  of 
young  men,  their  claims  and  duties.  And  here  again, 
while  enforcing  the  precious  advantages  of  Occupation, 
it  would  be  pleasant  to  unfold  and  vindicate  that  rever- 
ence which  antiquity  wisely  accorded  to  youth,  as  the 
season  of  promise  and  hope,  pregnant  with  an  unknown 
35* 


414  POSITION    AXD    DUTIES 

future,  and,  therefore,  to  be  watched  with  tenderness 
and  care  ;  to  show  how  in  every  young  man  the  uncer- 
tain measure  of  yet  undeveloped  capacities  gives  scope 
to  a  magnificence  of  anticipation  beyond  any  reality  ; 
and  to  ask  what  must  be  done,  that  all  this  anticipa- 
tion may  not  wholly  die  while  the  young  man  lives. 
But  there  are  other  things  which  beckon  me  away. 
Not  on  books,  not  on  youth  shall  I  speak  ;  but  on  yet 
another  topic,  suggested  directly  by  the  name  of  your 
Association. 

With  your  kind  permission,  I  shall  speak  to-night 
on  what  this  age  requires  from  the  mercantile  profes- 
sion, or  rather,  since  nothing  is  justly  required  which 
is  not  due,  what  the  mercantile  profession  owes  to  this 
age.  I  would  show  the  principle  by  which  we  are  to 
be  guided  in  making  the  account  current  between  the 
mercantile  profession  and  Humanity,  and,  might  I  so 
aspire,  hold  up  the  Looking-glass  of  the  Good  Mer- 
chant. And,  since  example  is  better  than  precept,  and 
deeds  are  more  than  words,  I  shall  exhibit  the  career 
of  a  remarkable  man,  whose  simple  life,  beginning  as 
the  apprentice  to  a  linen  draper,  and  never  getting 
beyond  a  clerkship,  shows  what  may  be  accomplished 
by  faithful,  humble  labors,  and  reveals  precisely  those 
qualities,  which,  in  this  age,  are  needed  to  crown  the 
character  of  a  Good  Merchant. 

"  Every  man  owes  a  debt  to  his  profession,"  was  a 
saying  of  Lord  Bacon,  repeated  by  his  contemporary 
and  rival  Lord  Coke.  But  this  does  not  tell  the  whole 
truth.  It  restrains  within  the  narrow  circle  of  a  pro- 
fession, obligations  which  are  broad  and  universal  as 


OP    THE   MERCHANT.  415 

humanity.  Rather  should  it  be  said  that  every  man 
owes  a  debt  to  mankind.  In  determining  the  debt  of 
the  merchant,  we  must  first  appreciate  his  actual  posi- 
tion in  the  social  system ;  and  here  let  us  glance  at 
history. 

At  the  dawn  of  modern  times  trade  was  unknown. 
There  was  nothing,  then,  like  a  policy  of  insurance,  a 
bank,  a  bill  of  exchange  or  even  a  promissory  note. 
The  very  term  "  chattels,"  so  comprehensive  in  its  pres- 
ent application,  yet  when  considered  in  its  derivation 
from  the  mediaeval  Latin  catalla,  cattle,  reveals  the  nar- 
row inventory  of  personal  property  in  those  days,  when 
"  two  hundred  sheep  "  were  paid  by  a  pious  Countess 
of  Anjou  for  a  coveted  volume  of  homilies.  The  places 
of  honor  and  power  were  then  occupied  by  men  who 
had  distinguished  themselves  by  the  sword,  and  were 
known  under  the  various  names  of  knight,  baron,  count, 
or  —  highest  of  all  —  Duke,  Dux,  the  leader  in  war. 

Under  these  influences  the  feudal  system  was  organ- 
ized, with  its  hierarchy  of  ranks,  in  mutual  relations 
of  dependence  and  protection  ;  and  society  for  a  while 
rested  in  its  shadow.  The  steel-clad  chiefs,  who  en- 
joyed power,  had  a  corresponding  responsibility  ;  and 
the  mingled  gallantry  and  gentleness  of  chivalry  often 
controlled  the  iron  hand.  It  was  the  dukes  who  led 
the  forces ;  it  was  the  counts  or  earls  who  placed 
themselves  at  the  head  of  their  respective  counties  ;  it 
was  the  knights  who  went  forth  to  do  battle  with 
danger,  in  whatever  form,  whether  from  robbers  or 
wild  beasts.  It  was  the  barons  at  Runnymede  —  there 
was  no  merchant  there  —  who  extorted  from  King 
John  that  Magna  Charta  which  laid  the  corner-stone 
of  English  and  American  liberty. 


416  POSITION    AND   DUTIES 

Meanwhile  trade  made  its  humble  beginnings.  But 
for  a  long  time  the  merchant  was  of  a  despised  caste, 
only  next  above  the  slave  who  was  sold  as  a  chattel. 
If  a  Jew,  he  was  often  compelled,  under  direful  tor- 
tures, to  surrender  his  gains  ;  if  a  foreigner,  he  earned 
toleration  by  inordinate  contributions  to  the  public 
revenue  ;  if  a  native,  he  was  treated  as  a  caitiff  too 
mean  for  society,  and  only  good  enough  to  be  taxed. 
In  the  time  of  Chaucer  he  had  so  far  come  up,  that  he 
was  admitted  to  the  promiscuous  company,  ranging 
from  the  knight  to  the  miller,  who  undertook  the  merry 
pilgrimage  from  the  Tabard  Inn  to  Canterbury ;  but 
the  gentle  poet  satirically  exposes  his  selfish  talk  — 

"  His  resons  spake  he  full  solempnly, 
Souning  alway  the  encrease  of  his  winning  ; 
He  wold  the  see  were  kept  for  any  thing 
Betwixen  Middleburgh  and  Ore  well." 

The  man  of  trade  had  been  so  low  that  it  took  him 
long  to  rise.  A  London  merchant,  the  famous  Gresham, 
in  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  founded  the  Royal  Exchange, 
and  a  college  also  ;  but  trade  continued  still  a  butt  for 
jest  and  jibe.  At  a  later  day  an  English  statute  gave 
new  security  to  the  merchant's  accounts  ;  but  the  con- 
temporaneous dramatists  exhibited  him  to  the  derision 
of  the  theatre,  and  even  the  almanacs  exposed  his 
ignorant  superstitions  by  chronicling  the  days  supposed 
to  bo  favorable  or  unfavorable  to  trade.  But  in  the 
grand  mutations  of  society,  the  merchant  throve.  His 
wealth  increased  ;  his  influence  extended,  and  he  gradu- 
ally drew  into  his  company  decayed  or  poverty-stricken 
members  of  feudal  families,  till  at  last  in  France,  (I  do 
not  forget  the  exceptional  condition  of  Italy,)  at  the 
close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  an  edict  was  put  forth, 


OF    THE    MERCHANT.  417 

which.  John  Locke  has  preserved  in  the  journal  of  his 
travels,  "  that  those  who  merchandise,  but  do  not  use 
the  yard,  shall  not  lose  their  gentility;"  (admirable 
discrimination !)  and  in  England,  at  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  his  former  degradation  and  growing 
importance  were  attested  in  the  saying  of  Dr.  Johnson, 
that  "  the  English  merchant  is  a  newly-discovered 
species  of  gentleman."  But  this  high  arbiter,  —  bend- 
ing under  feudal  traditions,  —  would  not  even  then 
concede  to  him  any  merit ;  proclaiming  that  "  there 
-were  no  qualities  in  trade  that  should  entitle  a  man  to 
superiority  ;  "  "  that  we  cannot  think  a  fellow,  by  sit- 
ting all  day  at  a  desk,  entitled  to  get  above  us,"  and, 
to  the  supposition  by  his  faithful  Boswell,  that  a  mer- 
chant might  be  a  man  of  enlarged  mind,  the  determined 
moralist  replied,  "  Why,  sir,  we  may  suppose  any 
fictitious  character  ;  but  there  is  nothing  in  trade  con- 
nected with  an  enlarged  mind." 

In  America  feudalism  never  prevailed,  and  our  Rev- 
olution severed  the  only  cord  by  which  we  were  con- 
nected with  this  ancient  system.  It  was  fit  that  the 
Congress,  which  performed  this  memorable  act,  should 
have  for  its  President  a  merchant.  It  was  fit  that,  in 
promulgating  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  by 
which,  in  the  face  of  kings,  princes  and  nobles,  the 
new  era  was  inaugurated,  the  education  of  the  count- 
ing-house should  flaunt  conspicuously  in  the  broad 
and  clerkly  signature  of  JOHN  HANCOCK.  Our  fathers 
"  builded  wiser  than  they  knew ;  "  and  these  things  are 
typical  of  the  social  change  then  taking  place.  And 
by  yet  another  act,  fresh  in  your  recollection,  and  of 
peculiar  interest  to  this  assembly,  has  our  country 
borne  the  same  testimony.  A  distinguished  merchant 


418          .  POSITION   AND   DUTIES 

of  Boston,  who  has  ascended  through  all  the  gradations 
of  trade,  honored  always  for  his  private  virtues  as  well 
as  public  abilities  —  I  may  mention  the  name  of  ABBOTT 
LAWBENCE —  has  been  sent  to  the  Court  of  St.  James 
as  the  ambassador  of  our  Republic,  and  with  that  proud 
commission,  higher  than  any  patent  of  nobility,  has 
taken  precedence  of  the  nobles  of  that  ancient  realm.  In 
this  circumstance  I  see  the  triumph  of  personal  merit, 
but  still  more,  the  consummation  of  a  new  epoch. 

Yes,  sir !  say  what  you  will,  this  is  the  day  of  the 
merchant.  As  in  the  early  ages,  war  was  the  great 
concern  of  society,  and  the  very  pivot  of  power,  so  is 
trade  now;  and  as  the  feudal  chiefs  were  the  "nota- 
bles "  placed  at  the  very  top  of  their  time,  so  are  the 
merchants  now.  All  things  attest  the  change.  War, 
which  was  once  the  universal  business,  is  now  confined 
to  a  few :  once  a  daily  terror,  it  is  now  the  accident 
of  an  age.  Not  for  adventures  of  the  sword,  but 
for  trade  do  men  descend  upon  the  sea  in  ships,  and 
traverse  broad  continents  on  iron  pathways.  Not  for 
protection  against  violence,  but  for  trade,  do  men  come 
together  in  cities  and  rear  the  marvellous  superstruc- 
ture of  social  order.  If  they  go  abroad,  or  if  they  stay 
at  home,  it  is  trade  that  controls  them,  without  distinc- 
tion of  persons.  Here,  at  least,  in  our  country  every 
man  is  a  trader.  The  physician  trades  his  benevolent 
care ;  the  lawyer  trades  his  ingenious  tongue ;  the 
clergyman  trades  his  prayers.  And  trade  summons 
from  the  quarry  the  choicest  marble  and  granite  to 
build  its  capacious  homes,  and  now,  in  our  own  city, 
displays  warehouses  which  outdo  the  baronial  castle, 
and  sales-rooms  which  outdo  the  ducal  palace.  With 
these  magnificent  appliances  the  relations  of  depend- 


OF    THE    MERCHANT.  419 

ence  and  protection,  which,  marked  the  early  feudalism, 
are  reproduced  in  the  more  comprehensive  feudalism 
of  trade.  Even  now  there  are  European  bankers  who 
vie  in  power  with  the  dukes  and  princes  of  other  days, 
and  there  are  traffickers  everywhere,  whose  title  comes 
from  the  ledger  and  not  the  sword,  fit  successors 
to  counts,  barons  and  knights.  As  the  feudal  chief 
allocated  to  himself  and  his  followers  the  soil,  which 
was  the  prize  of  his  strong  arm,  so  now  the  merchant, 
with  a  grasp  more  subtle  and  reaching,  allocates  to 
.himself  and  followers,  ranging  through  multitudinous 
degrees  of  dependence,  all  the  spoils  of  every  land, 
triumphantly  won  by  trade.  I  would  not  press  this 
parallel  too  far,  but,  at  this  moment,  especially  in  our 
country,  the  merchant,  more  than  any  other  character, 
stands  in  the  very  boots  of  the  feudal  chief.  Of  all 
pursuits  or  relations,  his  is  now  the  most  extensive 
and  formidable,  making  all  others  its  tributaries,  and 
bending  at  times  even  the  lawyer  and  the  clergyman  to 
be  its  dependent  stipendiaries. 

Such  in  our  social  system  is  the  merchant ;  and  on 
this  precise  and  incontrovertible  statement  I  found  his 
duties.  Wealth,  power,  and  influence  are  not  for  self- 
indulgence  merely,  and  just  according  to  their  extent 
are  the  obligations  to  others  which  they  impose.  If, 
by  the  rule  of  increase,  to  him  that  hath  is  given,  so  in 
the  same  degree  new  duties  are  superadded  :  nor  can 
any  man  escape  from  their  behests.  If  the  merchant 
be  in  reality  our  feudal  lord,  he  must  render  feudal  ser- 
vice ;  if  he  be  our  modern  knight,  he  must  do  knightly 
deeds  ;  if  he  be  the  baron  of  our  day,  let  him  maintain 
baronial  charity  to  the  humble  —  ay,  sir,  and  baronial 
courage  against  tyrannical  wrong,  in  whatsoever  form 


420  POSITION    AND   DUTIES 

it  may  assume.  But  even  if  I  err  in  attributing  to  him 
this  peculiar  position,  I  do  not  err  in  attributing  to  him 
these  duties ;  for  his  influence  is  surely  great,  and  he 
is  at  least  a  man,  bound  by  his  simple  manhood  to 
regard  nothing  human  as  foreign  to  his  heart. 

The  special  perils  which  aroused  the  age  of  chivalry 
have  passed  away.  Monsters,  in  the  form  of  dragons, 
griffins,  or  unicorns,  no  longer  ravage  the  land.  Giants 
have  disappeared  from  the  scene.  Robbers  have  been 
dislodged  from  castle  and  forest.  Godeschal  the  Iron- 
hearted,  and  Robin  Hood,  are  each  without  descend- 
ants. In  the  new  forms  which  society  has  assumed, 
touched  by  the  potent  wand  of  trade,  there  is  no  place 
for  any  of  these.  But  wrong  and  outrage  are  not  yet 
extinct.  Cast  out  of  one  body,  they  enter  straightway 
another,  whence  too  they  must  be  cast  out.  Alas  !  in 
our  day,  amidst  all  this  teeming  civilization,  with  the 
horn  of  Abundance  at  our  gates,  with  the  purse  of 
Fortunatus  in  our  hands,  with  professions  of  Christianity 
on  our  lips,  and  with  the  merchant  installed  in  the 
high  places  of  chivalry,  there  are  sorrows  not  less  poig- 
nant than  those  which  once  enkindled  knightly  sym- 
pathy ;  and  there  is  wrong,  which  vies  in  loathsomeness 
with  early  monsters,  in  power  with  early  giants,  and 
in  its  existing  immunity  with  the  robbers  once  shel- 
tered by  castle  and  forest  —  stalking  through  your 
streets  in  the  abused  garb  of  law  itself,  and  dwarfing 
by  its  hateful  presence  all  the  atrocities  of  another  age. 
A  wicked  man  is  a  deplorable  sight ;  but  a  wicked  law 
is  worse  than  any  wicked  man,  even  than  the  wretch 
who  steals  human  beings  from  their  home  in  Africa ; 
nor  can  its  outrages  be  redressed  by  any  incidental 
charities,  perishing  at  night  as  the  manna  in  the  wilder- 


OF    THE    MERCHANT.  421 

ness.  Like  a  monster,  it  must  be  overpowered  ;  like 
a  robber,  it  must  be  cbained ;  like  a  wild  beast,  it  must 
be  exterminated. 

To  the  merchant,  then  —  especially  to  the  young 
merchant  —  I  appeal,  by  the  position  you  have  won 
and  by  the  power  which  is  yours ;  go  forth  to  redress 
these  grievances,  whatever  they  may  be,  whether  in 
the  sufferings  of  the  solitary  soul  or  audaciously  organ- 
ized in  the  likeness  of  law.  And  now,  that  I  may  not 
seem  to  hold  up  any  impracticable  standard,  that  the 
path  of  duty  may  not  appear  difficult,  and  that  no 
young  man  need  hesitate,  even  though  he  find  himself 
alone,  and  opposed  by  numbers,  let  me  present  briefly, 
as  becomes  the  hour,  the  example  and  special  achieve- 
ment of  GKANVII/LE  SHARP,  the  humble  Englishman, 
who,  without  wealth,  fame,  or  power,  did  not  hesitate 
to  set  himself  against  the  merchants  of  the  time,  against 
the  traditions  of  the  English  bar,  against  the  authority 
of  learned  lawyers,  and  against  the  power  of  magis- 
trates, until,  by  persevering  effort,  he  compelled  the 
highest  tribunal  of  the  land  to  declare  the  grand  con- 
stitutional truth,  that  the  slave  who  sets  his  foot  on 
British  ground  becomes  that  instant  free.  His  character 
of  pure  and  courageous  principle  may  be  little  regarded 
yet ;  but  as  time  advances,  it  will  become  a  guiding 
luminary.  There  are  stars  aloft,  centres  of  other 
systems,  in  such  depths  of  firmament  that  only  after 
the  lapse  of  ages  does  their  light  reach  this  small  ball 
which  we  call  earth. 

Mr.  President,  do  not  start,  J  shall  not  tread  on 
forbidden  ground.  To  the  occasion  and  to  your  asso- 
ciation I  shall  be  loyal ;  but  let  me  be  loyal  also  to 
myself.  Thank  God,  the  great  volume  of  the  past  is 
36 


422       POSITION    AXD    DUTIES    OF    THE    MEBCHANT. 

always  open,  with  its  lessons  of  warning  and  example. 
Nor  will  the  assembly,  which  now  does  me  the  honoi 
to  listen  to  me,  be  willing  to  imitate  the  pious  pirates 
of  the  Carribean  Seas,  who  daily  recited  the  ten  com- 
mandments, always  omitting  the  injunction,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  steal."  I  know  well  the  sensitiveness  of 
certain  consciences.  This  is  natural.  It  is  according 
to  the  decrees  of  Providence  that,  whosoever  has  been 
engaged  in  meanness  or  wickedness,  should  be  pur- 
sued wherever  he  moves  by  reproving  voices  —  speak- 
ing to  him  from  the  solitudes  of  nature,  from  the  dark- 
ness of  night,  from  the  hum  of  the  street,  and  from 
every  book  that  he  reads,  like  fiery  tongues  at  Pente- 
cost, until  at  last  the  confession  of  Satan  himself  can 
alone  express  his  wretchedness  : 

'  Me  miserable  !  which  way  shall  I  fly  ? 
Which  way  I  fly  is  hell,  —  myself  am  hell  !  ' 

GRANVILLE  SHARP  was  born  at  Durham  in  1735. 
His  family  was  of  great  respectability  and  of  ancient 
lineage.  His  grandfather  was  Archbishop  of  York, 
and  the  confidential  chaplain  and  counsellor  of  the  re- 
nowned Chancellor,  Heneage  Finch,  Lord  Nottingham. 
His  less  conspicuous  father  was  an  arch-deacon  and 
prebendary  of  the  church,  who,  out  of  his  ecclesiastical 
emoluments,  knew  how  to  dispense  charity,  while  he 
reared  his  numerous  children  to  different  pursuits. 
Of  these  Granville  was  the  youngest  son,  and,  though 
his  elder  brothers  were  educated  for  professional  life, 
he  was  destined  to  trade,  a  portion  being  set  apart  by 
his  father  to  serve  as  his  apprentice  fee  in  London. 
With  this  view  his  back  was  turned  upon  the  learned 
languages,  and  his  instruction  was  confined  chiefly  to 


GEAKVILLE    SHARP.  423 

writing  and  arithmetic ;  but  at  this  time  he  read  and 
enjoyed  all  the  plays  of  Shakespeare,  in  an  apple-tree 
of  his  father's  orchard.  When  fifteen  years  old,  lie 
was  bound  as  apprentice  to  a  Quaker  linen-draper  in 
London,  and  at  this  tender  age  left  his  father's  house. 
Of  his  apprenticeship  he  has  given  an  interesting 
glimpse  :  — 

"  After  I  had  served  about  three  years  of  my  apprenticeship, 
my  master,  the  Quaker,  died,  and  I  was  turned  over  to  a  Pres- 
byterian, or  rather,  as  he  was  more  properly  called,  an  Inde- 
pendent. I  afterward  lived  some  time  with  an  Irish  Papist,  and 
also  with  another  person,  who,  I  believe,  had  no  religion  at  all." 

Although  always  a  devoted  member  of  the  Church 
of  England,  these  extraordinary  experiences  in  early 
life  placed  him  above  the  prejudices  of  sect,  and  in- 
spired a  rule  of  conduct,  worthy  of  perpetual  memory, 
which  he  presents  as  follows : 

"  It  taught  me  to  make  a  proper  distinction  between  the 
OPINIONS  of  men  and  their  PERSONS.  The  former  I  can  freely 
condemn  without  presuming  to  judge  the  individuals  themselves. 
Thus  freedom  of  argument  is  preserved,  as  well  as  Christian 
charity,  leaving  personal  judgment  to  Him  to  whom  alone  it 
belongs." 

Only  two  years  before  the  enrolment  of  Granville 
Sharp  among  London  apprentices  —  that  class  so 
famous  in  local  history  —  another  person,  kindred  in 
benevolence  and  now  in  fame,  Howard,  the  philan- 
thropist, on  whose  career  Burke  has  cast  the  illu- 
mination of  his  genius,  finished  service  in  the  same 
place  as  apprentice  to  a  wholesale  grocer.  I  do  not 
know  that  these  two  congenial  natures  —  or  yet 
another  contemporary  of  lowly  fortunes,  John  Raikes, 
the  inventor  of  Sunday  schools  —  ever  encountered 
in  the  world.  But  they  are  joined  in  example,  and 


424       POSITION    AND    DUTIES    OF    THE    MERCHANT. 

the  life  of  an  apprentice,  in  all  its  humilities,  seems 
radiant  with  their  presence,  as  with  heavenly  light. 
Perhaps,  among  the  apprentices  of  Boston,  there  may 
be  yet  a  Granville  Sharp,  or  John  Howard.  And  just 
in  proportion  as  the  moral  nature  asserts  its  rightful 
supremacy  here,  will,  such  a  character  be  hailed  as  of 
higher  worth  than  the  products  of  all  the  mills 
of  Lowell,  backed  by  all  the  dividends  and  discounts 
of  State  street. 

In  1758,  shortly  after  the  completion  of  his  appren- 
ticeship and  entrance  upon  business,  Sharp  lost  both 
his  parents,  and  very  soon  thereafter  abandoning  trade, 
obtained  a  subordinate  appointment  as  a  supernumerary 
clerk  in  the  Ordnance  Office,  where,  after  six  years' 
service,  he  became  simply  a  '  clerk  in  ordinary.' 
Meanwhile,  conscientiously  fulfilling  this  life  of  rou- 
tine and  labor,  not  unlike  the  toils  of  Charles  Lamb 
at  the  India  House,  he  commenced,  in  moments  saved 
from  business  and  snatched  from  sleep,  a  series  of 
studies,  which,  though  undervalued  by  his  modesty, 
the  scholar  may  envy.  That  he  might  better  enjoy 
and  vindicate  that  Book,  which  he  reverentially  ac- 
cepted as  the  rule  of  life,  he  first  studied  Greek  and 
then  Hebrew,  obtaining  such  command  of  both  lan- 
guages, as  to  employ  them  skilfully  in  the  field  of 
theological  controversy.  Music  and  French  he  studied 
also,  and  our  own  English  tongue 'too,  on  the  pronun- 
ciation of  which  he  wrote  an  excellent  essay. 

These  quiet  pursuits  were  interrupted  by  an  incident 
which  belongs  to  tho  romance  of  truth.  An  unhappy 
African,  by  the  name  of  Jonathan  Strong,  had  been 
brought  from  Barbadoes  to  London,  as  a  slave,  where, 
after  brutal  outrages,  at  which  the  soul  shudders, 


GRANVILLE    SHARP.  425 

inflicted  by  the  person  who  called  himself  master  — 
I  regret  to  add  lawyer  also  —  he  was  turned  adrift 
on  the  unpitying  stones  of  that  great  metropolis,  lame, 
blind  and  faint,  with  ague  and  with  fever,  and  with- 
out a  home.  In  this  plight,  while  staggering  along 
in  quest  of  medical  care,  he  was  met  by  the  good 
Samaritan,  Granville  Sharp,  who,  touched  by  his 
misfortunes,  bound  up  his  wounds,  gave  him  chari- 
table assistance,  placed  him  in  a  hospital,  and  watched 
him  through  a  protracted  illness,  until  at  last  health 
-and  strength  again  returned,  and  he  was  able  to  com- 
mence service  as  a  freeman  in  a  respectable  home.  In 
this  condition,  after  the  lapse  of  two  years,  he  was  at 
last  recognized  in  the  street  by  his  old  master,  who  at 
once  determined  to  entrap  him,  and  to  hold  him  as  a 
slave.  By  a  deceitful  message  the  victim  was  tempted 
to  a  public  house,  where  he  was  shocked  to  encounter 
his  cruel  claimant,  who,  without  delay,  seized  and 
committed  him  to  prison.  Here,  again,  Avas  the  good 
Samaritan,  Granville  Sharp,  who  lost  no  time  in  en- 
joining upon  the  keeper  of  the  prison,  at  his  peril, 
not  to  deliver  the  negro  to  any  person  whatever,  and 
then  promptly  invoked  the  intervention  of  the  Mayor 
of  London.  At  the  hearing  before  this  magistrate,  it 
appeared  that  the  claimant  had  already  undertaken,  by 
a  formal  bill  of  sale,  to  convey  the  alleged  slave  to 
another  person,  who,  by  an  agent,  was  in  attendance 
to  take  him  on  board  a  ship  bound  for  Jamaica.  As 
soon  as  the  case  had  been  stated,  the  Mayor  gave 
judgment  in  words  worthy  of  imitation  :  "  The  lad," 
said  this  righteous  judge,  "has  not  stolen  anything, 
and  is  not  guilty  of  any  offence,  and  is,  therefore,  at 
liberty  to  go  away."  The  agent  of  the  claimant,  not 
36* 


426      POSITION    AND    DUTIES    OF    THE    MERCHANT. 

disheartened,  seized  him  by  the  arm  and  still  claimed 
him  as  "  property."  Yes  !  even  as  property  !  Sharp, 
in  his  ignorance  of  legal  proceedings,  was  for  a  moment 
perplexed,  when  the  friendly  voice  of  the  coroner,  who 
chanced  to  be  near,  whispered,  "  Charge  him;"  on 
which  hint  our  philanthropist,  turning  at  once  to  the 
brazen-faced  claimant,  said,  with  justifiable  anger  of 
manner :  "  Sir,  I  charge  you  in  the  name  of  the  King, 
with  an  assault  upon  the  person  of  Jonathan  Strong, 
and  all  these  are  my  witnesses ! "  when,  to  avoid 
immediate  commitment,  and  th'e  yawning  cells  of  the 
jail,  he  let  go  his  piratical  slave-hunting  grasp,  "  and 
all  bowed  to  the  Lord  Mayor  and  came  away,  Jona- 
than following  Granville  Sharp,  and  no  one  daring  to 
touch  him." 

But  the  end  was  not  yet.  By  this  accidental  and 
disinterested  act  of  humanity,  Sharp  was  exposed  at 
the  same  time  to  personal  insult  and  to  a  suit  at  law. 
The  discomfited  claimant  —  the  same  lawyer  who  had 
originally  abandoned  the  slave  in  the  streets  of  Lon- 
don —  called  on  him  "  to  demand  gentlemanlike  satis- 
faction ;  "  to  which  the  philanthropist  replied,  that, 
as  "the  lawyer  had  studied  law  so  many  years,  he 
should  want  no  satisfaction  that  the  law  could  give 
him."  And  he  nobly  redeemed  his  word ;  for  he 
applied  himself  at  once  to  his  defence  against  the  legal 
process  instituted  by  the  claimant  for  an  alleged  ab- 
straction of  property.  Here  begins  his  greatness. 

It  is  in  collision  with  difficulty  that  the  sparks  of 
genuine  character  appear.  This  simple-hearted  man, 
now  vindictively  pursued,  laid  his  case  before  an 
eminent  solicitor,  who,  after  ample  consideration 
with  learned  counsel,  —  among  whom  was  the  cele- 


GBANYILXiE    SHAHP. 

brated  Sir  James  Eyre,  —  did  not  hesitate  to  assure 
him  that,  under  the  British  Constitution,  he  could  not 
be  defended  against  the  action.  An  opinion  given  in 
1729,  jointly  by  the  Attorney  General  and  Solicitor 
General  of  the  time,  York  and  Talbot,  —  two  great 
names  in  the  English  law,  and  each  afterwards  Lord 
Chancellor,  —  was  adduced,  declaring,  under  their 
respective  signatures,  that  "  a  slave,  by  coming  from  the 
West  Indies  to  Great  Britain  or  Ireland,  either  with 
or  without  his  master,  doth  not  become  free,"  and 
-"  that  the  master  may  legally  compel  him  to  return 
again  to  the  plantations  ;  "  and  Lord  Mansfield,  the 
Chief  Justice,  was  reported  as.  strenuously  concurring 
in  this  opinion,  to  the  odious  extent  of  delivering  up 
fugitive  slaves  to  their  claimants.  With  these  author- 
ities against  him,  and  forsaken  by  his  professional 
defenders,  Sharp  was  not  disheartened  ;  but,  though, 
according  to  his  own  striking  language,  "  totally  un- 
acquainted either  with  the  practice  of  the  law,  or  the 
foundations  of  it,  having  never  in  his  life  opened  a  law 
book  except  the  Bible,"  he  was  inspired  to  depend  on 
himself.  An  unconquerable  will,  and  those  instincts 
which  are  often  profounder  in  their  teaching  than  any 
learning,  were  now  his  counsellors.  For  nearly  two 
years,  during  which  the  suit  was  still  pending,  he  gave 
himself  to  an  intense  study  of  the  British  Constitution 
in  all  its  bearings  upon  human  liberty.  During  these 
researches,  he  was  confirmed  in  his  original  preposes- 
sions  on  the  question,  and  aroused  to  an  undying 
hostility  against  Slavery,  Avhich  he  plainly  saw  to  be 
without  any  sanction  in  the  Constitution.  "  Neither 
the  word  SLAVES,"  he  exclaimed,  "  or  anything  that 


428       POSITION    AND    DUTIES    OF    THE    MEECHANT. 

can  justify  the  enslaving  of  others,  can  ~be  found  there, 
God  be  praised  !  "  *  And  I,  too,  say  God  be  praised ! 

The  result  of  these  studies  was  embodied  in  a  tract, 
"  On  the  Injustice  and  Dangerous  Tendency  of  toler- 
ating Slavery,  or  even  of  admitting  the  least  Claim  to 
Private  Property  in  the  Persons  of  Men  in  England." 
This  was  submitted  to  his  counsel,  one  of  whom  was 
the  famous  commentator,  Sir  William  Blackstone,  and, 
by  means  of  numerous  copies  in  manuscript,  circulated 
among  gentlemen  of  the  bar,  until  the  lawyers  on  the 
other  side  were  actually  intimidated,  and  the  Slave- 
hunter,  failing  to  bring  forward  his  action,  was  mulcted 
in  treble  costs  ;  and  thus  ended  that  persecution  of  our 
philanthropist.  This  important  tract  was  printed  in  1 769. 

Thus  far  it  was  an  individual  case  only  which  had 
engaged  his  care.  Another  soon  followed,  where, 
through  his  chivalrous  humanity,  the  intolerable  wrongs 
of  a  woman  kidnapped  in  London  and  transported  as 
a  slave  to  Barbadoes,  were  redressed,  —  so  far  as  an 
earthly  decree  could  go.  Learning  the  infinite  woes 
of  Slavery,  he  was  now  aroused  to  broader  efforts. 
Shocked  by  an  advertisement  in  a  London  newspaper, 
—  such  as  often  appeared  in  those  days  —  of  "  a  black 
girl  to  be  sold,  of  excellent  temper  and  willing  dispo- 
sition," —  he  at  once  protested  to  the  Chancellor,  Lord 
<Camden,  against  such  things  as  "a  notorious  breach 
of  the  laws  of  nature,  humanity  and  equity,  and  also 
the  established  law,  custom  and  constitution  of  Eng- 
land;"  and  in  the  same  year,  loth  May,  1769,  he 
solemnly  appealed  by  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury against  the  slave  trade,  and  thus  by  many 

*  Hoare's  Life  of  Sharp,  vol.  i.  p.  58,  cap.  I. 


GBANVILLE    SHAEP.  429 

years  heralded  the  labors  of  Clarkson  and  Wilberforce. 
"  I  am  myself  convinced,"  he  said,  "  that  nothing  can 
thrive  which  is  in  any  way  concerned  in  that  unjust 
trade.  I  have  known  several  instances,  which  are  strong 
proofs  to  me  of  the  judgments  of  God,  even  in  this 
world,  against  such  a  destructive  and  iniquitous  traffic." 
In  these  things  he  showed  not  only  his  love  of  justice, 
but  his  personal  independence.  "  Although  I  am  a 
placeman"  he  wrote  on  another  occasion,  "  and  indeed 
of  a  very  inferior  rank,  yet  I  look  on  myself  to  be  per- 
fectly independent,  because  I  have  never  yet  been 
afraid  to  do  and  avow  whatever  I  thought  just  and 
right,  without  the  consideration  of  consequences  to 
myself ;  for,  indeed,  I  think  it  unworthy  of  a  man  to 
be  afraid  of  the  world  ;  and  it  is  a  point  with  me  never 
to  conceal  my  sentiments  on  any  subject  whatever,  not 
even  from  my  superiors  in  office,  when  there  is  a  prob- 
ability of  answering  any  good  purpose  by  it." 

Still  again  his  protecting  presence  was  enlisted  to 
save  a  fellow-man  from  bondage  ;  and  here  it  is  neces- 
sary to  note  the  new  form  of  outrage.  A  poor  African, 
Thomas  Lewis,  who  had  once  been  a  slave,  was  residing 
quietly  at  Chelsea,  in  the  neighborhood  of  London, 
when  he  was  suddenly  seized  by  his  former  master, 
who,  with  the  aid  of  two  ruffians  hired  for  the  fiend- 
ish purpose,  dragged  him  on  his  back  into  the  water, 
and  thence  into  a  boat  lying  in  the  Thames,  in  which, 
with  his  legs  tied,  and  his  mouth  gagged  by  a  stick, 
he  was  rowed  down  to  a  ship  bound  for  Jamaica,  under 
a  commander  previously  engaged  in  the  conspiracy,  to 
be  sold  for  a  slave  on  his  arrival  in  that  island.  But 
this  diabolical  act,  though  warily  contrived,  did  not 
escape  notice.  The  cries  of  the  victim,  on  his  way  to 


430      POSITION    AND    DUTIES    OF    THE    MERCHANT. 

the  boat,  reached  the  servants  of  a  neighboring  man 
sion,  who  witnessed  the  deadly  struggle,  but  did  not 
venture  a  rescue.  Their  mistress,  a  retired  widow, 
mother  of  the  eminent  naturalist  and  traveller,  Sir 
Joseph  Banks,  on  learning  what  had  passed,  instantly 
put  forth  her  womanly  exertions.  Without  the  hesita- 
tion of  her  sex,  she  hurried  to  Granville  Sharp,  who 
was  now  known  for  his  knightly  zeal  to  succor  the 
distressed,  laid  before  him  the  terrible  story,  and  in- 
sisted upon  vindicating  the  freedom  of  the  stranger  at 
her  own  expense.  All  honor  to  this  woman  !  A 
simple  warrant,  first  obtained  by  Sharp,  was  scouted 
by  the  captain,  whose  victim,  bathed  in  tears,  was 
already  chained  to  the  mast.  The  great  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  was  next  invoked  ;  and  the  ship,  which  had 
contumaciously  proceeded  on  its  way,  was  boarded  in 
the  Downs,  happily  within  British  jurisdiction,  by  a 
faithful  officer,  who,  in  the  name  of  the  King  of  Eng- 
land, unbound  the  chains  of  the  African,  and  took  him 
back  to  freedom. 

A  complaint  was  now  presented  against  the  kid- 
nappers, who  were  at  once  indicted  by  the  grand  jury. 
The  cause  was  removed  to  the  King's  Bench,  and  on 
the  20th  February,  1771,  brought  into  court  before 
Lord  Mansfield.  The  defence  was,  that  the  victim 
was  their  slave,  and,  therefore,  property  to  be  rightfully 
seized.  And  here  the  question  was  distinctly  pre- 
sented, whether  any  such  property  was  recognized  by 
the  British  Constitution.  The  transcendent  magistrate, 
who  presided  on  the  occasion,  saw  the  magnitude  of 
the  issue,  and  sought  to  avoid  its  formal  determina- 
tion, by  presenting  the  subordinate  point,  whether  the 
claimant,  supposing  such  property  recognized,  was  able 


-.    *  GBANYILLE    SHAEP.  431 

to  prove  the  man  to  be  his.  The  kidnappers  were 
found  "  guilty  ; "  but  judgment  against  them  was 
waived  on  the  recommendation  of  Lord  Mansfield, 
who,  be  it  observed,  shrank,  at  every  stage,  from  any 
act  by  which  Slavery  in  England  should  be  annulled, 
and  who  avowed  on  this  occasion  "  his  hope  that  the 
question  never  would  be  finally  discussed."  Sharp 
was  justly  indignant  at  this  craven  conduct,  which, 
with  all  gentleness  of  manner,  but  with  perfect  firm- 
ness, he  did  not  hesitate  to  arraign  as  an  "  open  con- 
"  tempt"  of  the  true  principles  of  the  Constitution. 

Alas  !  it  is  the  natural  influence  of  Slavery  to  make 
men  hard.  Gorgon-like,  it  turns  to  stone  all  who  look 
upon  its  face  except  to  slay  it.  Among  the  juridical 
magistrates  of  the  time,  Lord  Mansfield  was  not  alone. 
His  companion  in  contemporary  fame,  Blackstone,  shared 
the  petrifaction.  An  early  edition  of  his  incomparable 
Commentaries  had  openly  declared  that  a  slave  on  com- 
ing to  England  became  at  once  a  freeman  ;  but,  in  a  sub- 
sequent edition,  after  the  question  had  been  practically 
presented  by  Granville  Sharp,  the  text  was  pusillani- 
mously  altered  to  an  abandonment  of  this  great  constitu- 
tional principle  ;  and  our  intrepid  philanthropist  hung 
his  head  with  shame  and  anxiety  while  the  counsel  for 
the  Slave-hunters  triumphantly  invoked  this  tergiver- 
sation as  a  new  authority  against  Freedom. 

But  the  day  was  at  hand  when  the  great  philanthro- 
pist was  to  be  vindicated,  even  by  the  lips  of  the  great 
magistrate.  The  Slavery  Question  could  not  be  sup- 
pressed. The  Chief  Justice  of  England  could  not  do 
it.  Drive  out  nature  with  a  pitchfork,  and  still  she 
will  at  once  return.  Only  a  few  months  elapsed,  when 
a  memorable  case  arose,  which  presented  the  question 


432       POSITION    AND   DUTIES    OF    THE    MERCHANT. 

distinctly  for  judgment.  A  negro,  James  Somerset, — 
whose  name,  as  the  starting-point  of  an  immortal  prin- 
ciple, will  help  to  keep  alive  the  appellation  of  the 
ducal  house,  to  which  it  originally  belonged,  —  was 
detained  in  irons  on  board  a  ship  lying  in  the  Thames, 
and  bound  for  Jamaica.  On  application  to  Lord  Mans- 
field, in  his  behalf,  3d  December,  1771,  supported  by 
affidavits,  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  directed  to  the 
captain  of  the  ship,  commanding  him  to  return  the 
body  of  Somerset  into  court,  with  the  cause  of  his 
detention.  In  course  of  time,  though  somewhat  tardily, 
the  body  was  produced,  and,  for  cause  of  detention,  it 
was  assigned,  that  he  was  the  property  of  Charles 
Stewart,  Esq.,  of  Virginia,  who  had  held  him  in  Vir- 
ginia as  a  slave  ;  that,  when  brought  as  such  to  Lon- 
don, he  ran  away  from  the  service  of  his  master,  but 
was  recovered,  and  finally  delivered  on  board  the  ship 
to  be  carried  to  Jamaica,  there  to  be  sold  as  the  slave 
and  property  of  the  Virginia  gentleman.  As  no  facts 
were  in  issue  here,  the  whole  cause  hinged  on  the 
constitutionality  of  Slavery  in  England  ;  and  the  great 
question  which  the  Chief  Justice  had  sought  to  avoid, 
and  on  which  the  Commentator  had  changed  sides,  was 
once  again  to  be  heard. 

In  order  to  give  solemnity  to  the  proceedings,  in 
some  degree  corresponding  to  their  importance,  the 
cause  was  brought  by  Lord  Mansfield  before  the  King's 
Bench,  where  it  was  continued  from  time  to  time,  ac- 
cording to  the  convenience  of  counsel  and  of  the  court, 
running  even  through  months,  and  occupying  different 
days  in  January,  February  and  May,  down  to  the  22d 
June,  1772,  when  judgment  was  finally  delivered. 
During  all  this  period,  Somerset,  having  recognized 


GEANVILLE    SHABP.  433 

with,  sureties  for  his  appearance  in  court,  was  left  at 
large.  To  Granville  Sharp  he  had  repaired  at  once, 
and  by  him  was  kindly  welcomed,  and  effectually  aided. 
Under  his  advice,  counsel  learned  in  the  law  were  re- 
tained, and  by  this  humble  clerk,  they  were  instructed 
in  the  grounds  of  defence.  At  his  expense,  too,  out  of 
his  small  means,  the  proceedings  were  maintained. 
"  Money,"  he  nobly  said,  "has  no  value  but  when  it 
is  well  spent ;  and  I  am  thoroughly  convinced,  that  no 
part  of  my  little  pittance  can  ever  be  better  bestowed 
than  in  an  honest  endeavor  to  crush  a  growing  oppres- 
sion, which  is  not  only  shocking  to  humanity,  but  in 
time  must  prove  even  dangerous  to  the  community." 
On  the  other  side,  the  costs  were  defrayed  by  a  sub- 
scription among  the  merchants  !  Hear  this,  merchants 
of  Boston,  justly  jealous  of  the  good  name  of  your 
calling,  and  hang  your  heads  with  shame  ! 

To  the  glory  of  the  English  bar,  the  eminent  counsel 
for  the  slave  declined  all  fees  for  their  valuable  and 
protracted  services  ;  and  here  let  me  pause  for  one 
moment  to  pay  them  an  unaffected  tribute.  They 
were  five  in  number :  Mr.  Sergeant  Davy,  who  opened 
the  cause  with  the  proposition  "  that  no  man  at  this 
day  is  or  can  be  a  slave  in  England;"  Mr.  Sergeant 
Glynn  ;  Mr.  Mansfield,  afterward  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Common  Pleas  ;  Mr.  Hargrave  and  Mr.  Alleyae,  each 
of  whom  was  patiently  heard  by  the  court  at  length. 
The  argument  of  Mr.  Hargrave,  who  early  volunteered 
his  great  learning  in  the  case,  is  one  of  the  masterpieces 
of  the  bar.  This  was  his  first  appearance  in  court ;  but 
it  is  well  that  liberty  on  that  day  had  such  support. 
For  all  these  gallant  lawyers,  champions  of  the.  right, 
there  is  honor  ever  increasing,  which  the  soul  spon- 
37 


434       POSITION    AND    DUTIES    OF    THE    MERCHANT. 

taneously  offers,  while  it  turns  in  sorrow  from  the 
counsel,  only  two  in  number,  who  allowed  themselves 
to  be  enlisted  on  the  side  of  Slavery.  I  know  well  that 
in  Westminster  Hall  there  are  professional  usages, 
which  happily  do  not  prevail  in  our  country  —  where 
every  such  service  depends  purely  on  contract  —  by 
which  a  barrister  thinks  himself  contrained  to  assume 
any  cause  which  is  properly  presented  to  him.  If  this 
service  depended  on  contract  there,  as  \vith  us,  the 
sarcasm  of  Ben  Jonson  would  be  strictly  applicable ; 

"  This  fellow 

For  six  sols  more  would  plead  against  his  Maker." 

The  Fox,  Act  4th. 

But  I  undertake  to  affirm,  that  no  usage,  professional 
or  social,  can  give  any  apology  for  joining  the  pack  of 
the  Slave-hunter.  Mr.  Dunning,  one  of  the  persons 
in  this  predicament,  shewed  that  he  acted  against  his 
better  nature.  The  first  words  in  his  argument  were  : 
"  It  is  incumbent  on  me  to  justify  the  detainer  of  the 
negro."  Pray  why  incumbent  on  him?  He  was  then 
careful  to  show  that  he  did  not  maintain  that  there  was 
an  absolute  property  in  him  ;  and  he  proceeded  to  say, 
among  other  tilings,  that  it  was  his  misfortune  to  ad- 
dress an  audience,  the  greater  part  of  which,  he  feared, 
was  prejudiced  the  other  way ;  that  for  himself,  he 
would  ifbt  be  understood  to  intimate  a  wish  in  favor 
of  Slavery  ;  but  that  he  was  bound  in  duty  to  mention 
those  arguments  most  useful  to  the  claimant,  so  far  as 
consistent  with  the  truth,  and  he  concluded  with  this 
conscience-stricken  appeal :  "  I  hope,  therefore,  I  shall 
not  suffer  in  the  opinion  of  those  whose  honest  passions 
are  fired  at  the  name  of  Slavery  —  I  hope  I  have  not 
transgressed  my  duty  to  humanity."  Clearly  the  lawyer 


GEANVILLE    SHAKP.  435 

had  trangressed  his  duty  to  Humanity.  No  man  can 
rightfully  enforce  any  principle  which  violates  human 
nature  ;  nor  can  any  suhtilty  of  dialectics,  any  extent 
of  erudition,  or  any  grandeur  of  intellect,  sustain  him. 
Notwithstanding  the  character  for  liberal  principles 
which  John  Dunning  acquired,  and  which  breathes 
in  his  sensitive  excuses  —  notwithstanding  his  double 
fame  at  once  in  Westminster  Hall  and  Saint  Stephen's 
Chapel  —  notwithstanding  the  peerage  which  he  vainly 
won,  "no  son  of  his  succeeding," — this  odious  service 
rendered  to  a  Slave-hunter,  calling  himself  a  Virginia 
gentleman,  cries  in  judgment  against  him,  and  will 
continue  to  cry,  as  time  advances.  (Do  not  start,  Mr. 
President,  I  am  alluding  to  occurrences  in  another 
hemisphere,  and  another  century  !)  As  well  undertake 
a  Slave-hunt  in  the  deserts  of  Africa  as  in  the  streets 
of  London.  As  well  pursue  the  fugitive  with  the 
hired  whip  of  the  overseer  as  with  the  hired  argument 
of  the  lawyer.  As  well  chase  him  with  the  bay  of  the 
blood-hound,  as  with  the  tongue  of  the  advocate.  It 
is  the  lawyer's  clear  duty  to  uphold  human  rights, 
whether  in  the  loftiest  or  the  lowliest,  and  when  he 
undertakes  to  uphold  a  wrong  so  outrageous  as  Slavery, 
his  proper  function  is  so  far  reversed,  that  he  can  be 
aptly  described  only  in  the  phrase  of  the  Roman  Church, 
L'Avocato  del  Diavolo,  The  Devil's  Advocate. 

Passing  from  the  counsel  to  the  court,  we  find  at 
once  occasion  for  gratitude  and  sorrow.  The  three 
judges,  Ashton,  Willes  and  Ashurst,  who  sat  at  the 
side  of  Lord  Mansfield,  were  silent  throughout  the 
whole  proceedings,  overawed,  perhaps,  by  his  com- 
manding authority,  so  that  he  alone  seems  to  be  present. 
Of  large  intellect  and  extensive  studies,  running  into 


436     POSITION   AND   DUTIES    OF    THE   MERCHANT. 

all  regions  of  learning ;  with  a  silver-tongued  voice 
and  an  amenity  of  manner  which  gave  a  constant  charm 
to  his  presence ;  with  unsurpassed  professional  and 
political  experience  combined ;  the  early  companion  of 
Pope  and  the  early  competitor  of  Pitt ;  having  already 
once  refused  the  post  of  Prime  Minister  and  three  times 
refused  the  post  of  Chancellor;  he  stood  forth  —  at 
the  period  when  the  poor  slave  was  brought  before 
him  —  as  an  acknowledged  light  of  jurisprudence,  and, 
take  him  for  all  in  all,  the  most  finished  magistrate 
England  had  then  produced.  But  his  character  had 
one  fatal  defect,  which  is  too  common  on  the  bench. 
He  lacked  moral  Jirmness,  which,  happily,  was  not 
lacking  in  Granville  Sharp.  Still  more,  he  was  not 
naturally  on  the  side  of  Liberty,  as  becomes  a  great 
judge,  but  always  by  blood  and  instinct  on  the  side  of 
prerogative  and  power  —  an  offence  for  which  he  was 
arraigned  by  his  contemporary,  Junius,  and  for  which 
posterity  will  hold  him  to  strict  account.  But  his 
luminous  mind,  prompt  to  perceive  the  force  of  prin- 
ciples, could  not  resist  the  array  of  arguments  now 
marshalled  for  Freedom.  He  saw  clearly  that  a  system 
like  Slavery  could  not  find  a  home  under  the  British 
Constitution,  which  nowhere  mentions  the  name  of  slave. 
And  yet  he  shrank  from  the  conclusion.  More  than 
once  he  coquetted  with  the  merchants,  who  had  the 
case  so  much  at  heart,  and  twice  he  ignobly  suggested 
that  the  claimant  might  avoid  the  decision  of  the  great 
question,  fraught  with  Freedom  or  Slavery  to  multi- 
tudes, simply  by  manumitting  the  individual  slave. 
And  when  at  last  the  case  could  not  be  arrested  by 
any  device,  or  be  longer  postponed  —  when  judgment 
was  inevitable — he  came  to  the  work,  not  warmly  or 


GKANVII.LE    SHARP.  437 

generously,  but  in  trembling  obedience  to  the  Truth 
which  awaited  to  be  declared. 

On  other  occasions  of  a  purely  commercial  character, 
his  judgments  were  more  learned  and  elaborate,  and 
they  were  reported  with  more  completeness  and  care  ; 
but  no  judgment  of  equal  significance  ever  fell  from 
the  great  Oracle.  From  various  sources  I  have  sought 
its  precise  import.*  It  is  remarkable  for  several  rules 
which  it  clearly  enunciates,  and  which,  though  often 
assaulted,  still  stand  as  reason  and  as  law.  Of  these 
the  first  was  expressed  in  these  simple  words  :  "  If  the 
parties  will  have  judgment,  fiat  justitia,  mat  ccelum  ; 
let  justice  be  done,  whatever  be  the  consequences." 
The  Latin  phrase,  which  here  plays  such  a  prominent 
part,  though  of  classical  stamp,  cannot  be  traced  to  any 
classical  origin,  and  it  has  even  been  asserted,  that  it 
was  freshly  coined  by  Lord  Mansfield  on  this  occasion, 
worthy  of  such  commanding  truth  in  such  commanding 
phrase.  But  it  is  of  older  date  and  from  another  mint, 
though  it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  it  took  its  cur- 
rency and  authority  from  him.  Coming  from  such  a 
conservative  magistrate,  it  is  of  peculiar  importance. 

*  It  is  strange  that  there  should  be  no  single  satisfactory  report 
of  this  memorable  judgment.  That  usually  quoted  from  Howell's 
State  Trials,  vol.  xx.  pp.  81,  82,  was  copied  from  Lofft,  a  reporter 
generally  avoided  as  an  authority.  There  is  another  report  in 
Hoar's  Life  of  Sharp,  pp.  89,  90  ;  also  another  in  Campbell's 
Lives  of  the  Chief  Justices,  vol.  ii.  p.  419  ;  and  still  another,  and, 
in  some  respects,  the  best,  in  the  Appendix  to  a  tract  published 
by  Sharp  in  1776,  entitled  "  The  Just  Limitation  of  Slavery  in 
the  Laws  of  God,  compared  with  the  unbounded  claims  of  the 
African  Traders  and  British  American  Slaveholders."  This 
judgment  is  also  considered  and  quoted  in  several  other  contem- 
porary tracts. 

37* 


438      POSITION   AND    DUTIES    OF    THE   MEECHANT. 

With  little  expansion  it  says  openly :  To  every  man  his 
natural  rights ;  justice  to  all,  without  distinction  of 
persons,  without  abridgment  and  without  compromise. 
Let  justice  be  done  though  it  drags  down  the  pillars  of 
the  sky.  Thus  spoke  the  Chief  Justice  of  England. 

And  still  another  rule,  hardly  less  important  or  less 
commanding,  was  clearly  proclaimed  in  these  penetrat- 
ing words :  "  I  care  not  for  the  supposed  dicta  of  judges, 
however  eminent,  if  they  be  contrary  to  all  principle ;" 
or,  in  other  language,  it  is  in  vain  that  you  invoke 
great  names  in  the  law  —  even  the  names  of  Hard- 
wicke  and  Talbot,  and  my  own  learned  associate  Black- 
stone  —  in  behalf  of  an  institution  which  defies  reason 
and  outrages  justice.  Mortal  precedents  are  powerless 
against  immortal  principles.  Thus  again  spoke  the 
Chief  Justice  of  England. 

Braced  by  these  rules,  the  next  stages  were  logically 
easy.  And  here  he  uttered  words  which  are  like  a 
buttress  to  Freedom.  He  declared  that  "  tracing 
Slavery  to  natural  principles,  it  can  never  be  sup- 
ported; "  that  is  to  say,  Slavery  is  a  violation  of  the 
great  law  of  nature,  established  by  God  himself,  and 
coextensive,  in  space  and  time,  with  the  Universe. 
Again  he  proclaimed,  "  Slavery  cannot  stand  on  any 
reason,  moral  or  political,  but  only  by  virtue  of  positive 
law,"  and  he  clinched  his  conclusion  by  the  unquestion- 
able statement,  that  "  in  a  matter  so  odious  the  evi- 
dence and  authority  of  this  law  must  be  taken  strictly ;  " 
in  other  words,  a  wrong  like  Slavery,  which  finds  no 
support  in  natural  law  or  in  reason,  can  be  maintained 
—  if  at  all  —  only  by  some  dread  mandate,  from  some 
sovereign  authority,  irresistibly  clear  and  incapable  of 
a  double  sense,  which  declares  in  precise  and  unequivo- 


GBANYILLE    SHABP.  489 

cal  terms,  that  men  guilty  of  no  crime  may  be  held  as 
slaves,  and  be  submitted  to  the  bargains  of  the  market- 
place, the  hammer  of  the  auctioneer,  and  the  hunt  of 
the  blood-hound.  Clearly  no  such  mandate  could  be 
shown  in  England.  And  after  asserting  the  obvious 
truth,  that  rights  cannot  depend  on  any  discrimination 
of  color,  and  thus  discarding  the  profane  assumptions 
of  race,  while  he  quoted  apt  Roman  authority  :  — 

"  Quamvis  ille  niger,  quainvis  tu  candidus  esses," 

the  Chief  Justice  concluded,  "  and,  therefore,  let  the 
negro  be  discharged."  Such  was  this  immortal  judg- 
ment. I  catch  its  last  words,  already  resounding 
through  the  ages,  with  the  voice  of  deliverance  to  an 
enslaved  people. 

From  Westminster  Hall,  where  he  had  so  long  been 
held  in  painful  suspense,  the  happy  freedman,  with 
the  glad  tidings  of  his  deliverance,  now  hurried  to 
his  guardian  protector,  Granville  Sharp,  who,  though 
organizing  and  sustaining  these  proceedings,  had  been 
restrained  by  unobtrusive  modesty  from  all  appearance 
of  attendance  in  court,  that  he  might  in  no  wise  irritate 
the  judge,  unfortunately  prepossessed  against  his  en- 
deavor. And  thus  closed  the  most  remarkable  consti- 
tutional battle  in  English  history,  fought  by  a  simple 
clerk,  once  apprentice  to  a  linen-draper,  against  the 
merchants  of  London,  backed  by  the  authority  of  great 
names  in  law,  and  by  the  most  exalted  magistrate  of 
the  age.  Even  like  the  stripling  David,  he  had  gone 
forth  to  the  contest,  with  only  a  sling  and  a  few 
smooth  stones  from  the  brook ;  and  Goliath  fell  pros- 
trate at  his  feet.  Not  merely  an  individual  slave  was 
emancipated,  but  upwards  of  fifteen  thousand  human 


440      POSITION    AND    DUTIES    OF    THE    MEKCHA.NT. 

beings  —  five  times  as  many  as  were  held  in  Slavery 
throughout  New  England  at  the  adoption  of  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution  —  were  discharged  from  bonds  ;  a 
slave  hunt  was  made  impossible  in  the  streets  of 
London ;  and  a  great  principle  was  set  up  which  will 
stand  forever  as  a  Landmark  of  Freedom. 

This  triumph,  which,  at  the  time,  was  hailed  by  the 
friends  of  human  happiness  with  exultation  and  de- 
light, has  been  commemorated  by  poetry  and  eloquence. 
It  .prompted  Cowper  in  his  Task,  to  these  touching 
verses : 

"  Slaves  cannot  breathe  in  England;  if  their  lungs 
Receive  our  air,  that  moment  they  are  free. 
They  touch  our  country  and  their  shackles  fall. 
That's  noble,  and  bespeaks  a  nation  proud 
And  jealous  of  the  blessing.     Spread  it  then, 
And  let  it  circulate  through  every  vein 
Of  all  your  Empire,  that  where  Britain's  power 
Is  felt,  mankind  may  feel  her  mercy  too ! " 

It  inspired  Curran  to  a  burst  of  eloquence  which  can 
never  be  forgotten : 

"  I  speak  in  the  spirit  of  British  law,  which  makes  liberty 
commensurate  with  and  inseparable  from  British  soil ;  which 
proclaims  even  to  the  stranger  .and  the  sojourner,  the  moment 
he  sets  his  foot  upon  British  earth,  that  the  ground  on  which  he 
treads  is  holy  and  consecrated  by  the  genius  of  Universal  Eman- 
cipation. No  matter  in  what  language  his  doom  may  have  been 
pronounced  ;  no  matter  what  complexion,  incompatible  with 
Freedom,  an  Indian  or  African  sun  may  have  burnt  upon  him; 
no  matter  in  what  disastrous  battle  his  liberty  may  have  been 
cloven  down;  nor  with  what  solemnities  he  may  have  been  de- 
voted upon  the  altar  of  Slavery;  the  moment  he  touches  the 
sacred  soil  of  Britain,  the  altar  and  the  god  sink  together  in  the 
dust;  his  soul  walks  abroad  in  her  own  majesty;  and  he  stands 


~  ?ii.E  GKANTIME    SHAEP.  441 

redeemed,  regenerated  and  disenthralled  by  the  irresistible  genius 
of  Universal  Emancipation." 

It  was  this  triumph  which  lifted  Brougham,  in  our 
own  day,  to  one  of  those  vivid  utterances  by  which 
truth  is  flashed  upon  the  most  unwilling  souls  : 

"  Tell  me  not  of  rights  —  talk  not  of  the  property  of  the  plant- 
er in  his  slaves.  I  deny  the  right  —  I  acknowledge  not  the 
property.  The  principles,  the  feelings  of  our  common  nature, 
rise  in  rebellion  against  it.  Be  the  appeal  made  to  the  under- 
standing or  to  the  heart,  the  sentence  is  the  same  that  rejects  it. 
In  vain  you  tell  me  of  laws  that  sanction  such  a  claim  !  There 
is  a  law  above  all  the  enactments  of  human  codes  —  the  same 
throughout  the  world,  the  same  in  all  times ;  it  is  the  law  written 
by  the  finger  of  God  on  the  heart  of  man  5  and  by  that  law,  un- 
changeable and  eternal,  while  men  despise  fraud,  and  loathe 
rapine  and  abhor  blood,  they  will  reject  with  indignation,  the 
wild  and  guilty  phantasy  that  man  can  hold  property  in  man." 

Granville  Sharp  did  not  now  rest  from  his  labors. 
The  Humanities  are  not  solitary.  Where  one  is  found, 
there  will  others  be  also.  The  advocate  of  the  slave 
in  London  was  naturally  the  advocate  of  liberty  for 
all  everywhere.  In  this  spirit  he  signalized  himself 
against  that  scandal  of  the  English  law,  the  hateful 
system  of  impressment,  while  he  encountered  no  less  a 
person  than  Dr.  Johnson,  whom  he  "did  not  hesitate  to 
charge  "  with  plausible  sophistry  and  important  self- 
sufficiency,  as  if  he  supposed  that  the  mere  sound  of 
words  was  capable  of  altering  the  nature  of  things ;  " 
also,  against  the  claims  of  England  in  the  controversy 
with  her  American  colonies,  zealously  maintaining  our 
cause  in  a  publication,  of  which  it  is  said  seven  thou- 
sand copies  were  printed  in  Boston  ;  also  in  establishing 
a  colony  of  liberated  slaves  at  Sierra  Leone,  on  the 


442      POSITION   AND   DITTIES    OF    THE   MEBCHAKT. 

coast  of  Africa,  the  predecessor  of  our  more  successful 
Liberia ;  and  finally,  as  a  leader,  not  only  against  the 
Slave-trade,  but  also  against  Slavery  in  the  colonies, 
so  that  he  was  reverentially  hailed  as  "  Father  of  the 
cause  in  England,"  and  was  placed  at  the  head  of 
the  illustrious  Committee  by  which  it  was  conducted, 
though  his  rare  modesty  prevented  him  from  actually 
taking  the  chair  to  which  he  was  unanimously  elected. 
But  no  modesty  could  check  his  valiant  soul  in  conflict 
with  wrong.  At  once,  after  the  decree  wrung  from 
Lord  Mansfield,  he  addressed  Lord  North,  the  Prime 
Minister,  warning  him  in  the  most  earnest  manner  to 
abolish  immediately  both  the  Slave-trade  and  Slavery 
itself  in  all  the  British  dominions,  as  utterly  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  principles  of  the  British  Constitution 
and  the  established  religion  of  the  land,  and  solemnly 
declaring  that  it  were  better  for  the  nation,  that  its 
American  possessions  had  never  existed,  or  even  that 
that  they  were  sunk  in  the  sea,  than  that  Great 
Britain  should  be  loaded  with  the  horrid  guilt  of  such 
abominable  wickedness.  With  similar  boldness,  in  an 
elaborate  work,  he  arraigned  the  doctrine  of  passive 
obedience  advanced  now  in  favor  of  judicial  tribunals, 
as  once  in  favor  of  kings,  and  he  openly  affirmed  as 
unquestionable  truth,  that  every  public  ordinance  con- 
trary to  reason,  justice,  natural  equity,  or  the  written 
word  of  God,  must  be  promptly  rejected.  Other 
things,  too,  I  might  mention ;  but  I  am  admonished 
that  I  must  draw  to  a  close.  Pardon  me  if  I  touch 
yet  one  other  shining  point  in  his  career  worthy  of 
perpetual  example. 

The  news  of  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  which  reached 
London  at  the  end  of  July,  1775,  found  him  at  his 


GBANTIXLE    SHAKP.  443 

desk,  still  a  clerk  in  the  Ordnance  Office,  and  obliged 
by  his  position,  to  participate  in  the  military  prepara- 
tions now  required.  But  he  was  unwilling  to  be 
concerned,  even  thus  distantly,  in  what  he  regarded 
as  "  that  unnatural  business ; "  and  though  a  close 
attendance  on  his  office  for  eighteen  years,  to  the 
neglect  of  all  other  means  of  subsistence,  had  made  it 
important  to  him  as  a  livelihood,  yet  he  resolved  to 
sacrifice  it.  Out  of  regard  to  his  great  worth  and  the 
respect  he  had  won,  he  was  at  first  indulged  with  a 
leave  of  absence,  but  when  hostilities  in  the  Colonies 
had  advanced  beyond  any  prospect  of  speedy  accom- 
modation, then  he  vacated  his  office.  This  man  of 
charity,  who  had  lived  for  others,  was  now  left  without 
support.  But  he  was  happy  in  the  testimony  he  had 
borne  to  his  principles ;  nor  was  he  alone.  Lord 
Effingham,  and  also  the  eldest  son  of  Lord  Chatham, 
threw  up  their  commissions  in  the  army  rather  than 
serve  on  the  side  of  injustice.  And  they  were  all 
clearly  right.  It  is  vain  to  suppose  that  any  human 
ordinance,  whether  from  King,  Parliament,  or  Judicial 
Tribunal,  can  vary  our  moral  responsibilities,  or  release 
us  from  obedience  to  God.  And  since  no  man  can 
stand  between  us  and  God,  it  belongs  to  each  con- 
science for  itself  to  determine  its  final  obligations,  and, 
where  pressed  to  an  unrighteous  act,  —  as  if  to  slay, 
or  what  is  equally  bad,  to  enslave  a  fellow-man, 
charged  with  no  crime,  —  then  at  every  peril  to  dis- 
obey it.  The  lofty  example  of  Granville  Sharp  on 
this  occasion  is  hot  the  least  among  the  large  legacies 
of  wisdom  and  fidelity  which  he  has  left  to  man- 
kind. 

All  these  are  especially  commended  to  us,  as  citizens 


444      POSITION    AND    DITTIES    OF    THE    MEBCHANX. 

of  the  United  States,  by  the  early  and  constant  interest 
which  he  manifested  in  our  country.  By  pen  and 
personal  intercession  he  vindicated  our  political  rights, 
and  when  independence  was  secured,  his  sympathies 
did  not  abate,  as  witness  his  correspondence  with 
Adams,  Jay,  Franklin,  and  America's  earliest  Abo- 
litionist, Anthony  Benezet.  His  name  became  an 
authority  here  —  at  the  South  as  well  as  the  North  — 
and  the  colleges,  including  Brown  University,  Harvard 
University,  and  William  and  Mary's,  of  slaveholding 
Virginia,  vied  with  each  other  in  conferring  upon 
him  their  highest  academic  honors.  But  the  growing 
numbers  of  the  Episcopal  Church  had  occasion  for 
special  gratitude,  only  to  be  repaid  by  a  loyal  regard 
for  his  character  and  life.  On  the  separation  from 
the  mother  country  they  were  left  without  any 
Episcopal  head.  To  repair  this  deprivation,  Granville 
Sharp,  in  published  writings  extensively  circulated, 
proposed  the  election  of  bishops  by  the  churches,  and 
their  subsequent  consecration  in  England,  as  congenial 
with  the  usages  of  early  Christians,  and,  after  much 
correspondence  and  many  impediments,  enjoyed  the 
satisfaction  of  presenting  two  bishops  elect  from 
America,  —  one  of  whom  was  the  exemplary  Bishop 
White,  of  Philadelphia,  —  to  the  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, by  whom  the  Christian  rite  of  laying  on  of 
hands  was  performed ;  and  thus  was  the  English  Epis- 
copacy communicated  to  this  continent.  I  know  not 
that  the  powerful  religious  denomination,  which,  in  its 
infancy,  he  befriended,  has  ever  sympathized  with  the 
great  effort  by  which  his  name  is  exalted;  but  they 
should  at  least  repel  the  weak  imputation,  —  so  often 
levelled  against  all  who  are  steadfast  against  Slavery, 
—  that  their  benefactor  was  "  a  man  of  one  idea." 


GRANVIIXE    SHAEP.  445 

Mr.  President  —  I  have  striven  to  keep  within  the 
open  field  of  history  and  philanthropy,  on  neutral 
ground  ;  but  you  would  not  forgive  me  if,  on  this 
occasion,  I  forbore  to  adduce  the  most  interesting  tes- 
timony of  Granville  Sharp,  touching  the  much  debated 
clause  in  our  Federal  Constitution,  which  has  been 
stretched  to  the  surrender  of  fugitive  slaves.  Anterior 
to  the  Constitution,  even  during  colonial  days,  he 
wrote  that  any  law  which  orders  the  arrest  or  ren- 
dition of  fugitive  slaves,  or  which,  in  any  way,  tends 
to  deprive  them  of  legal  protection,  is  to  be  deemed 
"  a  corruption,  null  and  void  in  itself;  "  and  at  a  later 
period,  in  an  elaborate  communication  to  the  Abolition 
Society  of  Maryland  —  (mark,  if  you  please,  of  slave- 
holding  Maryland)  —  which  was  printed  and  circu- 
lated by  this  society,  as  "  the  production  of  a  great 
and  respectable  name,"  calculated  to  relieve  persons 
"  embarrassed  by  a  conflict  between  their  principles 
and  the  obligations  imposed  by  unwise  and,  perhaps, 
unconstitutional  laws,"  he  exposed  the  utter  "ille- 
gality" of  Slavery  and  especially  of  "  taking  up  slaves 
that  had  escaped  from  their  masters."  But,  in  a  re- 
markable letter  to  Franklin,  dated  10th  January,  1788, 
—  a  short  time  after  the  Constitution  had  left  the 
hands  of  the  Convention,  and  some  months  before  its 
final  adoption  by  the  people,  —  and  which  has  never 
before  been  mentioned  even  in  the  thorough  discus- 
sion of  this  question,  the  undaunted  champion,  who 
had  not  shrunk  from  conflict  with  the  Chief  Justice  of 
England,  openly  arraigned  the  Federal  Constitution. 
Here  are  his  words  :  — 

"  Having  been  always  zealous  for  the  honor  of  free  govern- 
ments, I  am  the  more  sincerely  grieved  to  see  the  new  Federal 
38 


446       POSITION    AND    DUTIES    OF    THE    MERCHANT. 

Constitution  stained  by  the  insertion  of  two  most  exceptionable 
clauses  ;  the  one  in  direct  opposition  to  a  most  humane  article, 
ordained  by  the  first  American  Congress  to  be  perpetually  ob- 
served [referring  to  the  sufferance  of  the  slave  trade  till  1808] : 
and  the  other,  in  equal  opposition  to  an  express  command  of  the 
Almighty,  not  to  deliver  up  the  servant  that  is  escaped  from  his 
master,  £c.  Both  clauses,  however,  (the  9th  section  of  the  1st 
article  and  the  latter  part  of  the  2d  section  of  the  3d  article,) 
are  so  clearly  null  and  void  by  their  iniquity,  that  it  would  be 
even  a  CRIME  to  regard  them  as  law."  * 

It  does  not  appear  that  Franklin  ever  answered  this 
letter,  in  the  short  term  of  life  which  remained  to  him. 
But  in  justice  to  his  great  name,  I  desire  to  express  my 
conviction  here  —  of  course  without  argument  —  that 
this  patriot  philosopher  never  attributed  to  the  clause, 

—  which  simply  provides  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives 
"  from  service  or  labor"  without  the  mention  of  slaves, 

—  any  such  meaning  as  it  has   since  been  made  to 
assume.     And    Granville    Sharp   himself,    in   putting 
upon  it  the  interpretation  he  did,  forgot  the  judgment 
which  he  had  extorted  from  Lord  Mansfield,  affirming 
that  any  law  out  of  which  Slavery  is  derived  must  be 
construed  strictly ;  and,  stranger  still,  he  forgot  his 
own  unanswerable   argument,  that  the  word  SLAVES 
is  nowhere  to  be  found  in  the  British   Constitution. 
The  question  under  the  fugitive  clause  of  our  Consti- 
tution is  identical  with  that  happily  settled  in  Eng- 
land. 

In  works  and  contemplations  like  these  was  the  life 
of  our  philanthropist  prolonged  to  a  generous  old  age, 
cheered  by  the  esteem  of  the  good,  informed  by  study, 

*Hoare's  Life  of  Sharp,  Part  ii.  cap.  9. 


GRANVILLE    SHARP.  447 

and  elevated  by  an  enthusiastic  faith,  which  always 
saw  the  world  as  the  footstool  of  God  ;  and  when,  at 
last,  in  1813,  bending  under  the  burden  of  seventy- 
seven  winters,  he  gently  sank  away,  it  was  felt  that  a 
man  had  died  in  whom  was  the  greatness  of  goodness. 
Among  the  mourners  at  his  grave  stood  William  Wil- 
berforce  ;  and  over  the  earthly  remains  of  this  child  of 
lowly  beginnings  were  now  dropped,  the  tears  of  a 
royal  duke.  The  portals  of  that  great  temple  of 
honor,  where  are  treasured  England's  glories,  swung 
open  at  the  name  of  England's  earliest  Abolitionist. 
A  simple  tablet,  from  the  chisel  of  Chantry,  represent- 
ing an  African  slave  on  his  knees  in  supplication,  and 
also  the  lion  and  the  lamb  lying  down  together,  with  a 
suitable  inscription,  was  placed  in  the  Poet's  corner  of 
Westminster  Abbey,  in  close  companionship  with 
those  stones  which  bear  the  names  of  Chaucer,  Spen- 
ser, Shakespeare,  Milton,  Dryden,  Goldsmith,  Gray. 
As  the  Muses  themselves  did  not  disdain  to  watch 
over  the  grave  of  one  who  had  done  well  on  earth,  so 
do  the  poets  of  England  now  keep  watch  over  the 
monument  of  Granville  Sharp.  Nor  is  his  place  in 
that  goodly  company  without  even  poetical  title.  The 
poet  is  simply  a  creator ;  and  he  who  was  inspired  to 
create  freemen  out  of  slaves  was  a  poet  of  the  loftiest 
style.  But  not  in  the  sacred  Abbey  only,  was  our 
philanthropist  commemorated.  The  city  of  London, 
the  centre  of  those  Slave-hunting  merchants,  over 
whom  his  great  triumph  was  won,  now  gratefully 
claimed  a  part  of  his  glory.  The  marble  bust  of  Eng- 
land's earliest  Abolitionist  was  installed  at  Guildhall, 
the  home  of  metropolitan  justice,  pomp  and  hospi- 
tality, in  the  precise  spot  where  once  had  stood  the 


448       POSITION    AND    DUTIES    OF    THE    MERCHANT. 

bust  of  Nelson,  England's  greatest  Admiral,  and  be- 
neath it  was  carved  a  simple  tribute  of  more  perennial 
worth  than  all  the  trophies  of  Trafalgar :  "  Granville 
Sharp,  to  whom  England  owes  the  glorious  verdict  of 
her  highest  court  of  law,  that  the  slave  who  sets  his 
foot  on  British  ground,  becomes  that  instant  free." 

Gentlemen  of  thp  Mercantile  Library  Association,  — 
such  was  Granville  Sharp  ;  and  such  honors  England 
to  her  hero  paid.  And  now,  if  it  be  asked,  why,  in 
enforcing  the  duties  of  the  Good  Merchant,  at  this 
day,  I  have  selected  his  name,  the  answer  is  prompt. 
It  is  in  him  that  the  merchant,  successor  to  the  chival- 
rous knight,  who  aims  to  fulfil  his  whole  duties,  may 
find  a  truer  prototype  than  in  any  stunted  though  suc- 
cessful votary  of  trade,  while  the  humble  circumstances 
of  his  life  seem  to  make  him  an  easy  example.  In 
imitating  him,  commerce  would  thrive  none  the  less ; 
but  goodness  more.  Business  would  not  be  checked; 
but  it  would  cease  to  be  pursued  as  the  "  one  idea  " 
of  life.  Wealth  would  still  abound ;  but  there  would 
be  also  that  solid  virtue,  never  to  be  moved  from  truth, 
which  you  will  admit,  even  without  the  admonition  of 
Plato,  is  better  than  all  the  cunning  of  Daedalus,  or 
all  the  treasures  of  Tantalus.  The  hardness  of  heart 
engendered  by  the  accursed  greed  for  gain,  and  by  the 
madness  of  worldly  ambition,  would  be  overcome ;  the 
perverted  practice,  that  Policy  is  the  best  Honesty, 
would  be  reversed ;  and  Merchants  would  be  recalled, 
gently  but  irresistibly,  to  the  great  PRACTICAL  DUTIES 
of  this  age,  and  thus  win  the  palm  of  true  honesty, 
which  trade  alone  can  never  bestow. 


GRANVILLE    SHARP.  449 


-  Who  is  the  HONEST  MAN  ? 


He  who  doth  still  and  strongly  good  pursue, 
To  GOD,  his  neighbor,  and  himself,  most  true." 

HERBERT. 

YOUNG  MERCHANTS  OF  BOSTON  !  I  have  spoken 
to  you  frankly  and  faithfully,  trusting  that  you  would 
frankly  and  faithfully  hearken  to  me.  And  now,  in 
the  benison  once  bestowed  upon  the  youthful  Knight, 
I  take  my  leave  :  "Go  forth,  be  brave,  loyal  and  suc- 
cessful." 


38* 


THE   DEMANDS  OF  FREEDOM  — REPEAL  OF  THE 
FUGITIVE  SLAVE  BILL. 

SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  23D  FEBRUARY, 
1855,  AGAINST  MR.  TOUCEY's  BILL,  AND  FOR  THE  REPEAL 
CF  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  BILL. 


On  23d  February,  1855,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Toucey,  of  Connec- 
ticut, the  Senate  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  a  "  Bill  to 
protect  officers  and  other  persons  acting  under  the  authority  of 
the  United  States,"  by  which  it  was  provided  that  "  suits  com- 
menced or  pending  in  any  State  Court  against  any  officer  of  the 
United  States  or  other  person,  for  or  on  account  of  any  act  done 
under  any  law  of  the  United  States,  or  under  color  thereof,  or 
for  or  on  account  of  any  right,  authority,  claim  or  title,  set  up 
by  such  officer  or  other  person,  under  any  law  of  the  United 
States,"  should  be  removed  for  trial  to  the  Circuit  Court  of  the 
United  States.  It  was  seen  at  once  that  under  these  words  an 
attempt  was  made  to  oust  the  State  Courts  of  cases  arising  from 
trespasses  and  damages  under  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill  ;  and  the 
Bill  was  pressed,  as  every  thing  for  Slavery  is  always  pressed,  even 
on  Friday,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  private  claims  to  which  that  day 
is  devoted  under  the  rules  of  the  Senate.  A  debate  commenced, 
which  was  continued  with  much  animation  and  feeling  late  into 
the  night. 

Mr.  SUMNEB  seized  this  opportunity  to  press  again  his  propo- 
sition to  repeal  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill.  Just  before  the  final 
question,  he  took  the  floor  and  spoke  as  follows  : 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  On  a  former  occasion,  as  Slavery 
was  about  to  clutch  one  of  its  triumphs,  I  rose  to  make 

[450] 


DEMANDS    OF    FBEEDOJt,    ETC.  451 

my  final  opposition  to  it  at  midnight.  It  is  now  the 
same  hour.  Slavery  is  again  pressing  for  its  accus- 
tomed victory,  which  I  again  undertake  for  the  mo- 
ment to  arrest.  It  is  hardly  an  accidental  conjunction 
which  thus  constantly  brings  Slavery  and  midnight 
together. 

Since  eleven  o'clock  this  forenoon  we  have  been  in 
our  seats,  detained  by  the  dominant  majority,  which, 
in  subservience  to  Slavery,  has  refused  to  postpone 
this  question  or  to  adjourn.  All  other  things  are  neg- 
lected. The  various  public  interests  which,  at  this 
late  stage  of  the  session,  all  press  for  attention,  are 
put  aside.  According  to  the  usages  of  the  Senate, 
Friday  is  dedicated  to  the  consideration  of  private 
claims.  I  have  been  accustomed  to  call  it  our  day  of 
justice,  and  I  have  been  glad  that,  since  these  matters 
are  referred  to  us,  at  least  one  day  in  the  week  has 
been  thus  set  apart.  But  Slavery  grasps  this  whole 
day,  and  changes  it  to  a  day  of  injustice.  By  the 
calendar,  which  I  now  hold  in  my  hand,  it  appears 
that,  at  this  moment,  upwards  of  seventy-five  private 
Bills,  with  which  are  associated  the  hopes  and  fears  of 
widows  and  orphans,  and  of  all  who  come  to  Congress 
for  relief,  are  on  your  table  neglected,  ay,  sir,  sacri- 
ficed to  the  Bill  which  is  now  urged  with  so  much 
pertinacity.  Like  Juggernaut,  the  Bill  is  driven  over 
prostrate  victims.  And  here  is  another  sacrifice  to 
Slavery. 

But  I  do  not  adequately  expose  the  character  of 
this  Bill  when  I  say  it  is  a  sacrifice  to  Slavery.  It  is 
a  sacrifice  to  Slavery  in  its  most  odious  form.  Bad  as 
Slavery  may  be,  it  is  not  so  bad  as  hunting  slaves. 
There  is  a  seeming  apology  for  Slavery  at  home,  in 


452  DEMANDS    OF    FBEEDOM 

the  States  where  it  prevails,  founded  on  the  difficulties 
in  the  position  of  the  master  and  the  relations  of  per- 
sonal attachment  which  it  sometimes  excites  ;  but  every 
apology  fails  when  you  seek  again  to  enslave  the  fugi- 
tive whom  the  master  could  not  detain  by  duress  or 
by  kindness ;  and  who,  by  courage  and  intelligence, 
under  the  guidance  of  the  north  star,  has  achieved  a 
happy  freedom.  Sir,  there  is  a  wide  difference  be- 
tween the  Slaveholder  and  the  Slave-hunter. 

But  the  Bill  before  you  is  to  aid  in  the  chase  of 
slaves.  This  is  its  object.  This  is  its  "  being's  end 
and  aim."  And  this  Bill,  with  this  object,  is  pressed 
upon  the  Senate  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Con- 
necticut [Mr.  Toucey].  Not  from  slave  soil,  but  from 
free  soil,  comes  this  effort.  A  Senator  from  the  North 
—  a  Senator  from  New  England  —  lends  himself  to 
the  work,  and  with  unnatural  zeal  helps  to  bind  still 
stronger  the  fetters  of  the  slave. 

Mr.  RUSK  (interrupting).  Will  the  honorable  Sen- 
ator allow  me  to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  SUMNEB.     Certainly. 

Mr.  RTTSK.  I  ask  him  to  point  out  the  words  in 
this  Bill  where  Slavery  is  mentioned. 

Mr.  SUMNEB.  I  am  glad  the  Senator  from  Texas 
has  asked  the  question,  for  it  brings  attention  at  once 
to  the  true  character  of  this  Bill.  I  know  its  language 
well,  and  also  its  plausible  title.  On  its  face  it  pur- 
ports to  be  "  a  Bill  to  protect  officers  and  other 
pers'ons  acting  under  the  authority  of  the  United 
States  ;  "  and  it  proceeds  to  provide  for  the  transfer 
of  certain  proceedings  from  the  State  courts  to  the 
Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States.  And  yet,  sir,  by 
the  admission  of  this  whole  debate,  stretching  from 


BEPEAL    OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE    Bill,.        453 

noon  to  midnight,  it*s  a  Bill  to  bolster  up  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Act. 

Mr.  RUSK.  I  have  not  listened  to  the  debate,  but 
I  ask  the  Senator  to  point  out  in  the  Bill  the  place 
where  Slavery  is  mentioned.  If  the  Constitution  and 
the  laws  appoint  officers,  and  require  them  to  discharge 
duties,  will  he  abandon  them  to  the  mob  ? 

Mr.  SUMMER.  The  Senator  asks  me  to  point  out 
any  place  in  this  Bill  where  "  Slavery  "  is  mentioned. 
Why,  sir,  this  is  quite  unnecessary.  I  might  ask  the 
"Senator  to  point  out  any  place  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  where  "  Slavery  "  is  mentioned,  or 
where  the  word  "  slave  "  can  be  found,  and  he  could 
not  do  it. 

-  Mr.  RUSK.  That  is  evading  the  question.  I  asked 
the  Senator  to  point  out  in  the  Bill  the  clause  where 
Slavery  is  mentioned.  The  Bill  proposes  to  protect 
officers  of  the  United  States,  whom  you  appoint,  in 
discharging  their  duties.  If  they  are  to  be  left  unpro- 
tected, repeal  your  law. 

Mr.  SUMNEK.  I  respond  to  the  Senator,  with  all 
my  heart,  "repeal  your  law."  Yes,  sir,  repeal  the 
Fugitive  Act  which  now  requires  the  support  of  sup- 
plementary legislation.  Remove  this  ground  of  offence. 
And  before  I  sit  down,  I  hope  to  make  that  very  motion. 
Meanwhile,  I  evade  no  question  propounded  by  the 
honorable  Senator  ;  but  I  do  not  consider  it  necessary 
to  show  that  "  Slavery  "  is  mentioned  in  the  Bill.  It 
may  not  be  found  there  in  name ;  but  Slavery  is  the 
very  soul  of  the  Bill. 

Mr.  RUSK  rose. 

Mr.  SUMNEE.     The   Senator  has  interrupted  me 


454  DEMANDS    OF    FREEDOM 

several  times  ;  he  may  do  it  mofe  ;  but,  perhaps,  lie 
had  better  let  me  go  on. 

Mr.  RUSK.  I  understand  the  Senator  ;  but  I  make 
no  boast  of  that  sort. 

Mr.  SUMNEH.  Very  well.  At  last  I  may  be  allowed 
to  proceed.  Of  the  Bill  in  question,  I  have  little  to 
say.  Its  technical  character  has  been  exposed  by 
various  Senators,  and  especially  by  my  valued  friend, 
the  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Chase],  who  opened  this 
debate.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  it  is  an  intrusive  and 
offensive  encroachment  on  State  Rights,  calculated  to 
subvert  the  power  of  the  States  in  the  protection  of 
their  citizens.  This  consideration  alone  would  be 
ample  to  secure  its  rejection,  if  the  attachment  to  State 
Rights,  so  often  avowed  by  Senators,  were  not  utterly 
lost  in  a  stronger  attachment  to  Slavery.  But  on  these 
things,  although  well  worthy  of  attention,  I  do  not 
dwell.  Objectionable  as  the  Bill  may  be  on  this  ground, 
it  becomes  much  more  so  when  I  regard  it  as  an  effort 
to  bolster  up  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act. 

Of  this  Act  it  is  difficult  to  speak  with  moderation. 
Conceived  in  defiance  of  the  Constitution,  and  in  utter 
disregard  of  every  sentiment  of  justice  and  humanity, 
it  should  be  regarded  as  an  outlaw.  It  may  have  the 
form  of  legislation,  but  it  lacks  every  essential  element 
of  law.  I  have  so  often  exposed  its  character  on  this 
floor,  that  I  shall  be  brief  now. 

There  is  an  argument  against  it  which  has  especial 
importance  at  this  moment,  when  the  Fugitive  Act  is 
made  the  occasion  of  a  new  assault  on  State  Rights. 
This  very  Act  is  an  assumption  by  Congress  of  power 
not  delegated  to  it  under  the  Constitution,  and  an  in- 
fraction of  rights  secured  to  the  States.  You  will 


REPEAL    OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLATE    BILL.        455 

mark,  if  you  please,  the  double  aspect  of  this  propo- 
sition, in  asserting  not  only  an  assumption  of  power  by 
Congress,  but  an  infraction  of  State  Rights.  And  this 
proposition,  I  venture  to  say,  defies  answer  or  cavil. 
Show  me,  sir,  if  you  can,  the  clause,  sentence  or  word 
in  the  Constitution,  which  gives  to  Congress  any  power 
to  legislate  on  this  subject.  I  challenge  honorable 
Senators  to  produce  it.  I  fearlessly  assert  that  it  can- 
not be  done.  The  obligations  imposed  by  the  "  fugi- 
tive "  clause,  whatever  they  may  be,  rest  upon  the 
States,  and  not  upon  Congress.  I  do  not  now  under- 
take to  say  what  these  obligations  are ;  but  simply 
that,  whether  much  or  little,  they  rest  upon  the  States. 
And  this  interpretation  is  sustained  by  the  practice  of 
Congress  on  another  kindred  question.  The  associate 
clause  touching  the  "privileges  of  citizens  "  has  never 
been  made  a  source  of  power.  It  will  be  in  the  recol- 
lection of  the  Senate,  that,  during  the  last  session,  the 
Senator  from  Louisiana  [Mr.  Benjamin],  in  answer  to  a 
question  from  me,  openly  admitted  that  there  were  laws 
of  the  Southern  States,  bearing  hard  upon  colored  citi- 
zens of  the  North,  which  were  unconstitutional ;  but 
when  I  pressed  the  honorable  Senator  with  the  question 
whether  he  would  introduce  or  sustain  a  Bill  to  carry 
out  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  securing  to  these 
citizens  their  rights,  he  declined  to  answer. 

Mr.  BENJAMIN.  I  think,  Mr.  President,  I  have  a 
right  to  set  the  record  straight  upon  that  point.  I 
rose  in  the  Senate  on  the  occasion  referred  to,  as  will 
be  perfectly  well  recollected  by  every  Senator  present, 
and  put  a  respectful  question  to  the  Senator  from  Mas- 
sachusetts. Instead  of  a  reply  to  my  question,  he  put 
a  question  to  me,  which  I  answered,  and  then  I  put 


456  DEMANDS    OF    FREEDOM 

my  question.  Instead  of  replying  to  that,  he  again 
put  a  question  to  me.  Considering  that  as  an  absolute 
evasion  of  the  question  which  I  put  to  him,  I  declined 
having  anything  further  to  say  in  the  discussion. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  The  Senator  from  Louisiana  will 
pardon  me  if  I  suggest  that  there  is  an  incontrovertible 
fact  which  shows  that  the  evasion  was  on  his  part. 
The  record  testifies  not  only  that  he  did  not  reply,  but 
that  I  was  cut  off  from  replying  by  the  efforts  and  votes 
of  himself  and  friends.  Let  him  consult  the  Congres- 
sional Globe,  and  he  will  find  it  all  there.  I  can  con- 
ceive that  it  might  be  embarrassing  to  him  to  reply,  for 
had  he  declined  to  sustain  a  Bill  to  carry  out  the  clause 
in  question,  it  would  have  been  awkward,  at  le.ast,  to 
vindicate  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  which  is  derived  from 
an  identical  clause  in  the  Constitution.  And  yet  there 
are  Senators  on  this  floor  who,  careless  of  the  flagrant 
inconsistency,  vindicate  the  exercise  of  power  by  Con- 
gress under  the  "  fugitive  "  clause,  while  their  own 
States  at  home  deny  to  Congress  any  power  under  the 
associate  clause,  on  the  "  privileges  of  citizens,"  — 
assume  to  themselves  a  complete  right  to  determine 
the  extent  of  its  obligations,  —  and  ruthlessly  sell  into 
Slavery  colored  citizens  of  the  North. 

Mr.  BUTLER  (interrupting).  Does  the  Senator 
allude  to  my  State  ? 

Mr.  RUSK.     No  ;  to  mine. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  If  he  means  South  Carolina,  I  will 
reply  to  him. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  I  do  allude  to  South  Carolina,  and 
also  to  other  Southern  States  ;  but  especially  to  South 
Carolina.  But  let  me  say,  that  if  I  allude  to  these 
States,  it  is  not  to  bring  up  and  array  the  hardships 


BEPEAL    OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLATE    BILL.        457 

of  individual  instances,  but  simply  to  show  the  position 
occupied  by  them  on  a  constitutional  question,  iden- 
tical with  that  involved  in  the  Fugitive  Act.  And 
now,  at  the  risk  of  repetition,  if  I  can  have  your  atten- 
tion for  a  brief  moment,  without  interruption,  I  will 
endeavor  to  state  anew  this  argument. 

The  rules  of  interpretation,  applicable  to  the  clause 
of  the  Constitution  securing  to  "  the  citizens  of  each 
State  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the 
several  States,"  are  equally  applicable  to  its  associate 
.clause,  forming  a  part  of  the  same  section,  in  the  same 
article,  and  providing  that  "  persons  held  to  service  or 
labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping 
into  another,  shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the 
party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." 
Of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

If  one  of  these  clauses  is  regarded  as  a  compact 
between  the  States,  to  be  carried  out  by  them  respec- 
tively, according  to  their  interpretation  of  its  obliga- 
tions, without  any  intervention  of  Congress,  then  the 
other  must  be  so  regarded ;  nor  can  any  legislative 
power  be  asserted  by  Congress  under  one  clause,  which 
is  denied  under  the  other.  This  proposition  cannot 
be  questioned.  Now  mark  the  consequences. 

Congress,  in  abstaining  from  all  exercise  of  power 
under  the  first  clause,  when  required  thereto,  in  order 
to  protect  the  liberty  of  colored  citizens,  while  it  has 
assumed  power  under  the  second  clause,  in  order  to 
obtain  the  surrender  of  fugitive  slaves,  has  shown  an 
inconsistency,  which  becomes  more  monstrous  when  it 
is  considered  that,  in  the  one  case,  the  general  and 
commanding  interests  of  Liberty  have  been  neglected, 
while  in  the  other,  the  peculiar  and  subordinate  inter- 
39 


458  DEMANDS    OF    FREEDOM 

esls  of  Slavery  have  been  carefully  secured ;  and  such 
an  exercise  of  power  is  an  alarming  evidence  of  that 
influence  of  Slavery  in  the  National  Government  which 
has  increased,  is  increasing,  and  ought  to  be  over- 
thrown. 

Looking  more  precisely  at  these  two  clauses,  we 
shall  arrive  at  the  true  conclusion.  According  to  the 
express  words  of  the  Constitution,  in  the  tenth  amend- 
ment, "  the  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States 
by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States, 
are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the  peo- 
ple ;  "  and  since  no  powers  are  delegated  to  the  United 
States,  in  the  clause  relating  to  "  the  privileges  and 
immunities  of  citizens,"  or  in  the  associate  clause  of 
the  same  section,  relating  to  the  surrender  of  "  persons 
held  to  service  or  labor,"  therefore,  all  legislation  by 
Congress,  under  either  clause,  must  be  an  assumption 
of  undelegated  powers,  and  an  infraction  of  rights 
secured  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the  people  ; 
and  such,  I  have  already  said,  is  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act. 

I  might  go  further,  and,  by  the  example  of  South 
Carolina,  vindicate  to  Massachusetts,  and  every  other 
State,  the  right  to  put  such  interpretation  upon  the 
"  fugitive "  clause  as  it  shall  think  proper.  The 
Legislature  of  South  Carolina,  in  a  series  of  resolu- 
tions, adopted  in  1844,  asserts  the  following  propo- 
sition : 

"  Resolved,  That  free  negroes  and  persons  of  color  are  not 
citizens  of  the  United  States  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, which  confers  upon  the  citizens  of  one  State  the  privileges 
and  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the  several  States." 

Here  is  a  distinct  assumption  of  a  right  to  determine 
the  persons  to  whom  certain  words  of  the  Constitution 


REPEAL  OF  THE  FUGITIVE  SLATE  BILL.    459 

are  applicable.  Now,  nothing  can  be  clearer  than 
this  :  If  South  Carolina  may  determine  for  itself 
whether  the  clause  relating  to  "  the  privileges  and 
immunities  of  citizens  "  be  applicable  to  colored  citi- 
zens of  the  several  States,  and  may  solemnly  deny  its 
applicability,  then  may  Massachusetts,  and  every  other 
State,  determine  for  itself  whether  the  other  clause 
relating  to  the  surrender  of  "  persons  held  to  service 
or  labor,"  be  really  applicable  to  fugitive  slaves,  and 
may  solemnly  deny  its  applicability.  * 

Mr.  President,  I  have  said  enough  to  show  the 
usurpation  by  Congress  under  the  "  fugitive  "  clause 
of  the  Constitution,  and  to  warn  you  against  renewing 
this  usurpation.  But  I  have  left  untouched  those 
other  outrages,  plentiful  as  words,  which  enter  into 
the  existing  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  among  which  are  the 
denial  of  trial  by  jury  ;  the  denial  of  the  writ  of  habeas, 
corpus  ;  the  authorization  of  judgment  on  ex  parte 
evidence,  without  the  sanction  of  cross-examination  ; 
and  the  surrender  of  the  great  question  of  Hu,:;au  Free- 
dom to  be  determined  by  a  mere  Commissioner,  who, 
according  to  the  requirements  of  the  Constitution,  is 
grossly  incompetent  to  any  such  service.  I  have  also 
left  untouched  the  hateful  character  of  this  enactment, 
as  a  barefaced  subversion  of  every  principle  of  human- 
ity and  justice.  And  now,  sir,  we  are  asked  to  lend 
ourselves  anew  to  this  enormity,  worthy  only  of  indig- 
nant condemnation ;  we  are  asked  to  impart  new  life 
to  this  pretended  law,  this  false  Act  of  Congress,  this 
counterfeit  enactment,  this  monstrosity  of  legislation, 
which  draws  no  life  from  the  Constitution,  as  it  clearly 
draws  no  life  from  that  Supreme  Law  which  is  the 
essential  fountain  of  life  to  every  human  law. 


460  DEMANDS    OF    FEEEDOM 

Sir,  the  Bill  before  you  may  have  the  sanction  of 
Congress  ;  and  in  yet  other  ways  you  may  seek  to 
sustain  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act.  But  it  will  be  in  vain. 
You  undertake  what  no  legislation  can  accomplish. 
Courts,  too,  may  come  forward,  and  lend  it  their  sanc- 
tion. All  this,  too,  will  be  in  vain.  I  respect  the 
learning  of  judges ;  I  reverence  the  virtue,  more  than 
learning,  by  which  their  lives  are  often  adorned.  But 
nor  learning,  nor  virtue,  when,  with  mistaken  force, 
bent  to  this  purpose,  can  avail.  I  assert  confidently, 
sir,  and  ask  the  Senate  to  note  my  assertion,  that  there 
is  no  court,  howsoever  endowed  with  judicial  qualities, 
or  surrounded  by  public  confidence,  which  is  strong 
enough  to  lift  this  Act  into  any  permanent  consideration 
or  respect.  It  may  seem,  for  a  moment,  to  accomplish 
the  feat.  Its  decision  may  be  enforced  —  amidst  tears 
and  agonies.  A  fellow-man  may  be  reduced  anew  to 
Slavery.  But  all  will  be  in  vain.  This  Act  cannot  be 
upheld.  Anything  so  entirely  vile,  so  absolutely  atro- 
cious, would  drag  an  angel  down.  Sir,  it  must  drag 
down  every  court,  which  in  an  evil  hour  ventures  to 
sustain  it. 

And  yet,  sir,  in  zeal  to  support  this  enormity,  Sena- 
tors have  not  hesitated  to  avow  a  purpose  to  break 
down  the  recent  legislation  of  States,  calculated  to 
shield  the  liberty  of  their  citizens.  "It  is  difficult," 
says  Burke,  "  to  frame  an  indictment  against  a  whole 
people."  But  here  in  the  Senate,  where  are  convened 
the  jealous  representatives  of  the  States,  we  have  heard 
whole  States  arraigned,  as  if  already  guilty  of  crime. 
The  Senator  from  Louisiana  [Mr.  Benjamin],  in  plain- 
tive tones  has  set  forth  the  ground  of  proceeding,  and 
more  than  one  sovereign  State  has  been  summoned  to 


BEPEAL    OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE   BILL.        461 

judgment.  It  would  be  easy  to  show,  by  a  critical 
inquiry,  that  this  whole  charge  is  without  just  founda- 
tion, and  that  all  the  legislation,  so  much  condemned, 
is  as  clearly  defensible  under  the  Constitution,  as  it  is 
meritorious  in  purpose. 

Sir,  the  only  crime  of  these  States  is,  that  Liberty 
has  been  placed  before  Slavery.  Follow  the  charge, 
point  by  point,  and  this  will  be  apparent.  In  securing 
to  every  person  claimed  as  a  slave  the  protection  of 
trial  by  jury  and  the  habeas  corpus,  they  simply  provide 
safeguards,  strictly  within  the  province  of  every  State, 
and  rendered  necessary  by  the  usurpation  of  the  Fugi- 
tive Act.  In  securing  the  aid  of  counsel  to  every  per- 
son claimed  as  a  slave,  they  but  perform  a  kindly  duty, 
which  no  phrase  or  word  in  the  Constitution  can  be 
tortured  to  condemn.  In  visiting  with  severe  penalties 
every  malicious  effort  to  reduce  a  fellow-man  to  Slavery, 
they  respond  to  the  best  feelings  of  the  human  heart. 
In  prohibiting  the  use  of  the  county  jails  and  buildings 
as  barracoons  and  slave-pens  ;  in  prohibiting  all  public 
officers,  holding  the  commission  of  the  State,  in  any 
capacity  —  whether  as  Chief  Justice  or  Justice  of  the 
Peace  —  whether  as  Governor  or  constable  —  from  any 
service  as  a  slave-hunter  ;  in  prohibiting  the  volunteer 
militia  of  the  State,  in  its  organized  form,  from  any 
such  service,  the  States  simply  exercise  a  power  under 
the  Constitution  —  recognized  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  even  while  upholding  Slavery  in 
the  fatal  Prigg  case  —  by  POSITIVE  PROHIBITION,  to 
withdraw  its  own  officers  from  this  offensive  business. 

For  myself,  let  me  say  that  I  look  with  no  pleasure 
on  any  possibility  of  conflict  between  the  State  and 
National  jurisdictions ;  but  I  trust  that,  if  the  interests 
39* 


462  DEMANDS    OF    FEEEDOM 

of  Freedom  so  require,  the  States  will  not  hesitate. 
From  the  beginning  of  this  controversy,  I  have  sought, 
as  I  still  seek,  to  awaken  another  influence,  which, 
without  the  possibility  of  conflict,  will  be  mightier  than 
any  Act  of  Congress  and  the  sword  of  the  National 
Government.  I  mean  an  enlightened,  generous,  humane, 
Christian  public  opinion,  which  shall  blast  with  con- 
tempt, indignation,  and  abhorrence,  all  who,  in  what- 
ever form,  or  under  whatever  name,  undertake  to  be 
agents  in  enslaving  a  fellow-man.  Sir,  such  an  opinion 
you  cannot  bind  or  subdue.  Against  its  subtle,  perva- 
sive influence,  your  legislation  and  the  decrees  of  courts 
will  be  powerless.  Already  in  Massachusetts,  I  am 
proud  to  believe,  it  begins  to  prevail ;  and  the  Fugitive 
Act  will  soon  be  there  a  dead  letter. 

Mr.  President,  since  things  are  so,  it  were  well  to 
remove  this'  Act  from  our  statute  book,  that  it  may  no 
longer  exist  as  an  occasion  of  ill-will  and  a  point  of 
conflict.  Let  the  North  be  relieved  from  this  usurpa- 
tion, and  the  first  step  will  be  taken  towards  permanent 
harmony.  The  Senator  from  Louisiana  [Mr.  Benja- 
min] has  proclaimed  anew  to-night  what  he  has  before 
declared  on  this  floor  —  "  that  Slavery  is  a  subject  with 
which  the  Federal  Government  has  nothing  to  do."  I 
thank  him  for  teaching  the  Senate  that  word.  True, 
most  true,  sir,  ours  is  a  Government  of  Freedom,  which 
has  nothing  to  do  with  Slavery.  This  is  the  doctrine 
which  I  have  ever  maintained,  and  which  I  am  happy 
to  find  recognized  in  form,  if  not  in  reality,  by  the 
Senator  from  Louisiana.  The  Senator  then  proceeded 
to  declare  that  "  all  that  the  South  asks  is  to  be  let 
alone."  This  request  is  moderate.  And  I  say,  for  the 
North,  that  all  we  ask  is  to  be  let  alone.  Yes,  sir,  let 


BEPEAL    OF   THE    FUGITIVE    SLATE   BILL        463 

us  alone.  Do  not  involve  us  in  the  support  of  Slavery. 
Hug  the  viper  to  your  bosoms,  if  you  perversely  will, 
within  your  own  States,  until  it  stings  you  to  a  gener- 
ous remorse,  but  do  not  compel  us  to  hug  it  too ;  for 
this  I  assure  you  we  will  not  do. 

But  the  Senator  from  Louisiana,  with  these  profes- 
sions on  his  lips,  proceeds  to  ask,  doubtless  with  com- 
plete sincerity,  but  in  strange  forge tfulness  of  the 
history  of  our  country  :  "  Did  we  ever  bring  this  sub- 
ject into  Congress  ?  "  Yes,  sir,  that  was  his  inquiry, 
as  if  there  had  been  any  moment,  from  the  earliest  days 
of  the  Republic,  when  the  supporters  of  Slavery  had 
ceased  to  bring  this  subject  into  Congress.  Almost 
from  the  beginning  it  has  been  there,  through  the 
exercise  of  usurped  power,  nowhere  given  under  the 
Constitution,  for  I»am  glad  to  believe  that  the  Consti- 
tution of  my  country  contains  no  words  out  of  which 
Slatery,  or  the  power  to  support  Slavery,  can  be  de- 
rived ;  and  this  conclusion,  I  doubt  not,  will  yet  be 
affirmed  by  the  courts.  And  yet,  the  honorable  Sena- 
tor asks  :  "  Did  we  ever  bring  this  subject  into  Con- 
gress ?  "  The  answer  shall  be  plain  and  explicit.  Sir, 
you  brought  Slavery  into  Congress,  when,  shortly  after 
the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  you  sanctioned  it  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,  within  the  National  jurisdic- 
tion, and  adopted  that  barbarous  slave  code,  still  extant 
on  your  statute-book,  which  the  Senator  from  Connec- 
ticut [Mr.  Gillette]  has  so  eloquently  exposed  to-night. 
You  brought  Slavery  into  Congress,  when  at  the  same 
period  you  accepted  the  cession  of  territories  from 
North  Carolina  and  Georgia,  now  constituting  States 
of  the  Union,  with  conditions  in  favor  of  Slavery,  and 
thus  began  to  sanction  Slavery  in  Territories  within 


464  DEMANDS    OF    FREEDOM  — 

the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Congress.  You  brought 
Slavery  into  Congress,  when,  at  different  times,  you 
usurped  a  power,  not  given  by  the  Constitution,  over 
fugitive  slaves,  and  by  most  offensive  legislation  thrust 
your  arms  into  distant  Northern  homes.  You  brought 
Slavery  into  Congress,  when,  by  express  legislation, 
you  regulated  the  coastwise  slave  trade,  and  thus 
threw  the  national  shield  over  a  traffic  on  the  coast  of 
the  United  States,  Avhich  on  the  coast  of  Congo  you 
justly  brand  as  "  piracy."  You  brought  Slavery  into 
Congress,  when,  from  time  to  time,  you  sought  to 
introduce  new  States  with  slaveholding  Constitutions 
into  the  National  Union.  And,  permit  me  to  say,  sir, 
you  brought  Slavery  into  Congress  when  you  called 
upon  it,  as  you  have  done  even  at  this  very  session,  to 
pay  for  slaves  —  and  thus,  in  defiance  of  a  cardinal 
principle  of  the  Constitution,  pressed  the  National  Gov- 
ernment to  recognize  property  in  men.  And  yet  the 
Senator  from  Louisiana,  with  strange  simplicity,  says 
that  the  South  only  asks  to  be  let  alone.  Sir,  the 
honorable  Senator  borrows  the  language  of  the  North, 
which,  at  each  of  these  usurpations,  exclaims,  "  Let  us 
alone."  And  let  me  say,  frankly,  that  peace  can  never 
prevail  until  you  do  let  us  alone  —  until  this  subject 
of  Slavery  is  banished  from  Congress  by  the  triumph 
of  Freedom  —  until  Slavery  is  driven  from  its  usurped 
foothold,  and  Freedom  is  made  national  instead  of  sec- 
tional —  and  until  the  National  Government  is  brought 
back  to  the  precise  position  it  occupied  on  the  day  that 
Washington  took  his  first  oath  as  President  of  the. 
United  States,  when  there  was  no  Fugitive  Act,  and 
the  national  flag,  as  it  floated  over  the  national  territory, 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress,  nowhere  covered  a 
single  slave. 


REPEAL    OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE   BILL.        465 

And  now,  sir,  as  an  effort  in  the  true  direction  of 
the  Constitution  ;  in  the  hope  of  beginning  the  divorce 
of  the  National  Government  from  Slavery,  and  to  re- 
move all  occasion  for  the  proposed  measure  under  con- 
sideration, I  shall  close  what  I  have  to  say  with  a  motion 
to  repeal  the  Fugitive  Act.  Twice  already,  since  I 
have  had  the  honor  of  a  seat  on  this  floor,  I  have 
pressed  that  question  to  a  vote,  and  I  mean  to  press  it 
again  to-night.  After  the  protracted  discussion,  in- 
volving the  character  of  this  enactment,  such  a  motion 
seems  logically  to  belong  to  this  occasion,  and  may  fitly 
close  its  proceedings. 

At  a  former  session,  on  introducing  this  proposition, 
I  discussed  it  at  length,  in  an  argument,  which  I  fear- 
lessly assert  has  never  been  answered,  and  now,  in  this 
debate,  I  have  already  touched  upon  various  objections. 
There  are  yet  other  things  which  might  be  urged.  I 
might  exhibit  the  abuses  which  have  occurred  under 
the  Fugitive  Act ;  the  number  of  free  persons  it  has 
doomed  to  Slavery ;  the  riots  it  has  provoked ;  the 
brutal  conduct  of  its  officers  ;  the  distress  it  has  scat- 
tered ;  the  derangement  of  business  it  has  caused, 
interfering  even  with  the  administration  of  justice, 
changing  court-houses  into  barracks  and  barracoons, 
and  filling  the  streets  with  armed  men,  amidst  which 
law  is  silent.  All  these  things  I  might  expose.  But 
in  these  hurried  moments,  I  forbear.  Suffice  it  to  say, 
that  the  proposition  to  repeal  the  existing  Fugitive 
Act  stands  on  adamantine  grounds,  which  no  debate  or 
opposition  can  shake. 

There  are  considerations  belonging  to  the  present 
period  which  give  new  strength  to  this  proposition. 
Public  Opinion,  which,  under  a  popular  Goverment, 


466  DEMANDS   OF    FREEDOM 

makes  and  unmakes  laws,  and  which  for  a  time,  was 
passive  and  acquiescent,  now  lifts  itself  everywhere  in 
the  States  where  the  act  is  sought  to  be  enforced,  and 
demands  a  change.  Already  three  States,  Rhode  Island, 
Connecticut  and  Michigan,  by  formal  resolutions  pre- 
sented to  the  Senate,  have  concurred  in  this  demand. 
The  tribunals  of  law  are  joining  at  last  with  the  people. 
The  Superior  Court  of  Cincinnati  has  denied  the  power 
of  Congress  over  this  subject.  And  now,  almost  while 
I  speak,  comes  the  solemn  judgment  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Wisconsin  —  a  sovereign  State  of  this  Union 
made  after  elaborate  argument,  on  successive  occasions, 
before  a  single  judge,  and  then  before  the  whole  bench, 
declaring  this  act  to  be  a  violation  of  the  Constitution. 
In  response  to  public  opinion,  broad  and  general,  if  not 
universal  at  the  North,  swelling  alike  from  village  and 
city,  from  the  seaboard  and  lakes — judically  attested, 
legislatively  declared,  and  represented,  also,  by  numer- 
ous petitions  from  good  men  without  distinction  of 
party  —  in  response  to  this  Public  Opinion,  as  well  as 
in  obedience  to  my  own  fixed  convictions,  I  deem  it 
my  duty  not  to  lose  this  opportunity  of  pressing  the 
repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  once  more  upon  the 
Senate.  I  move,  sir,  to  strike  out  all  after  the  enacting 
clause  in  the  pending  Bill,  and  insert  instead  thereof 
these  words : 

"  That  the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  September  18,  1850, 
usually  known  as  the  '  Fugitive  Slave  Act,'  be,  and  the  same 
hereby  is  repealed. ' ' 

And  on  this  motion  I  ask  the  yeas  and  nays. 

When  Mr.  Sumner  took  his  seat,  he  was  followed  by  Mr.  Butler 
of  South  Carolina,  who  puf  a  question  to  him,  which  was  the 
occasion  of  the  following  dialogue. 


REPEAL    OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE    BILL.       467 

Mr.  SUMNER.  The  Senator  asks  me  a  question,  and 
I  answer,  frankly,  that  no  temptation,  no  inducement, 
would  draw  me  in  any  way  to  sanction  the  return  of 
any  man  to  Slavery.  But  then  I  leave  to  others  to 
speak  for  themselves.  In  this  respect,  I  speak  for 
myself. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  I  do  not  rise  now  at  all  to  question 
the  right  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  to  hold 
his  seat,  under  the  obligation  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  with  the  opinions  which  he  has  ex- 
pressed ;  but,  if  I  understand  him,  he  means  that, 
whether  this  law,  or  that  law,  or  any  other  law  pre- 
vails, he  disregards  the  obligations  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Not  at  all.  That  I  never  said.  I 
recognize  the  obligations  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  But,  sir,  I  will  ask  that  gentleman 
one  question  :  if  it  devolved  upon  him  as  a  representa- 
tive of  Massachusetts,  all  Federal  laws  being  put  out 
of  the  way,  would  he  recommend  any  law  for  the  de- 
livery of  a  Fugitive  Slave  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  ? 

Mr.  SUMNER.     Never. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  I  knew  that.  Now,  sir,  I  have  got 
exactly  what  is  the  truth,  and  what  I  intend  shall  go 
forth  to  the  Southern  States. 


WAGES  OF  SEAMEN  IN  CASE  OF  WRECK. 

SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  28 TH  FEBRU 
ART,  1855,  ON  INTRODUCING  A  BILL  TO  SECURE  WAGES  TO 
SEAMEN  IN  CASE  OF  WRECK. 


On  the  28th  February,  1855,  Mr.  Sumner,  in  pursuance  of 
previous  notice,  asked  and  obtained  leave  to  introduce  a  Bill  to 
secure  wages  to  seamen  in  case  of  wreck,  which  was  read  twice 
by  its  title. 

MB.  STJMNEK.  —  In  introducing  this  Bill,  I  desire  to 
make  a  brief  explanation,  which  shall,  at  least,  be  a 
record  of  my  views  with  regard  to  it. 

The  Bill  proposes  an  amelioration  of  the  existing 
maritime  law  in  respect  to  the  wages  of  merchant 
seamen,  which,  so  far  as  England  is  concerned,  has 
already  been  made  by  Act  of  Parliament,  and  which,  in 
our  country,  can  only  be  accomplished  by  Act  of  Con- 
gress. 

By  the  existing  maritime  law,  the  seaman's  wages 
depend  upon  a  technical  rule,  which  sometimes  occa- 
sions hardships.  Freight  is  compendiously  said  to  be 
the  mother  of  wages.  In  conformity  with  this  fanciful 
idea,  the  wages  are  made  to  depend  upon  the  earning 
of  freight,  unless  the  freight  has  been  waived  by  agree- 

[468] 


WAGES    OF    SEAMEX    IX    CASE    OF    WKECK.       469 

iuent  of  the  owner,  or  unless  the  voyage  or  freight  be 
lost  by  the  negligence,  fraud,  or  misconduct  of  the 
owner  or  master,  or  be  voluntarily  abandoned.  In 
case  of  wreck,  the  sailor  has  simply  the  chance  of 
something,  under  the  name  of  salvage,  if  the  fragments 
of  the  ship  saved  happen  to  be  of  any  value.  But  if 
the  loss  be  total,  then  the  sailor  is  without  remedy. 
In  the  wrecks  which  occur  with  melancholy  frequency 
on  our  churlish  winter  coast,  this  hardship  adds  even 
to  the  sorrows  of  disaster.  Thus,  as  in  a  case  which 
has  actually  arisen,  a  crew  may  commence  service  at 
Calcutta,  may  navigate  the  Indian  Ocean,  double  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and  bring  their  ship  safely  to  the 
sight  of  land,  and  then,  by  the  total  loss  of  the  ship 
and  cargo,  from  the  acknowledged  perils  of  the  •  sea, 
they  may  lose  everything  —  even  their  right  to  wages 
—  and  may  find  themselves  in  a  strange  port,  the  prey 
of  poverty.  Nor  can  any  merit,  either  throughout  the 
protracted  voyage,  or  in  the  hour  of  peril  and  ship- 
wreck, prevent  the  operation  of  this  technical  rule. 

There  is  also  another  circumstance  which  constrains 
the  poor  sailor.  The  owner  may  insure  his  ship,  and 
also  his  freight,  so  that  he  may  lose  nothing  but  the 
premium  he  pays ;  but  the  sailor  is  not  allowed  to  pro- 
tect himself  by  insurance  from  the  loss  of  his  wages. 
His  loss  is,  therefore,  literally  total. 

Now,  this  technical  rule,  which  fastens  the  wages  of 
the  sailor  to  the  fortunes  of  the  vessel,  or,  in  other 
words,  makes  the  right  dependent  on  the  successful 
issue  of  the  enterprise  for  which  he  is  hired,  must  be 
considered  an  off-shoot  of  the  mediaeval  maritime  law. 
It  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Roman  law,  nor  in  the 
maritime  legislation  of  the  Eastern  Empire,  nor  in  that 
40 


470       WAGES    OF    SEAMEN    IN    CASE    OF    WRECK. 

early  compilation  which  goes  under  the  name  of  the 
Rhodian  law.  An  eminent  American  judge,  who  has 
shed  great  light  upon  maritime  jurisprudence  —  I  refer 
to  the  learned  and  able  Judge  Ware,  of  the  District 
Court  of  Maine  —  has  said,  in  a  judicial  opinion,  (see 
The  Dawn,  Daveis's  Rep.  133,)  that  it  owes  its  origin 
to  the  necessities  and  peculiar  hazards  which  maritime 
commerce  was  compelled  to  encounter  in  the  middle 
ages,  when  to  the  dangers  of  the  winds  and  waves 
were  added  the  more  formidable  perils  of  piracy  and 
robbery.  The  rule  having  been  thus  established,  has 
been  preserved  in  the  maritime  jurisprudence  of 
Europe,  when  the  special  exigencies  in  which  it  had 
its  birth  have  ceased  to  exist.  It  has  outlived  the 
circumstances  and  excuses  of  its  origin ;  and  now  sur- 
vives to  vex,  oppress  and  disappoint  the  most  needy, 
if  not  the  most  meritorious,  of  all  who  are  concerned 
in  the  business  of  the  seas. 

This  hard  rule  survives  with  us,  but  not  everywhere. 
The  greatest  commercial  nation  of  the  world  has  led 
the  way  in  its  abolition,  and  set  an  example  to  the 
United  States.  The  Act  of  Parliament  of  7th  and  8th 
Victoria,  chap.  112,  sec.  17  (at  the  close)  —  called 
"  the  Merchant  Seamen's  Act"  — provides  that 

"  In  all  cases  of  wreck  or  loss  of  the  ship,  every  surviving  sea- 
man shall  be  entitled  to  his  wages  up  to  the  period  of  the  wreck 
or  loss  of  the  ship,  whether  such  ship  shall  or  shall  not  have 
ear  ned freight ;  provided  the  seaman  shall  produce  a  certificate 
from  the  master,  or  chief  surviving  officer  of  the  ship,  to  the 
effect  that  he  had  exerted  himself  to  the  utmost  to  save  the  ship, 
cargo  and  stores." 

But  the  sailor  was  not  completely  protected  by  this 
provision.  Experience  in  England  showed  that  the 


WAGES    OF    SEAMEN    IN    CASE    OF    WKECK.       471 

cunning  of  agents  was  able  to  introduce  into  the  ship- 
ping articles  an  agreement  waiving  the  right  to  wages 
in  case  of  loss,  which  the  unthrifty  sailor  signed,  igno- 
rant or  careless  of  its  import.  To  remedy  this  abuse,, 
a  further  Act  of  Parliament,  of  13th  and  14th  Victoria, 
chap.  98,  sec.  53  —  known  as  "  the  Mercantile  Marine 
Act  "  — provides  that 

"  No  seaman  shall,  by  reason  of  any  agreement,  forfeit  his  lien 
upon  the  ship,  or  be  deprived  of  any  remedy  for  the  recovery  of 
his  wages,  to  which  he  would  otherwise  have  been  entitled  ;  and 
every  stipulation  which  is  inconsistent  with  any  provision  of  this 
Act,  or  of  any  other  Act  relating  to  the  merchant  service,  and 
every  stipulation  by  which  any  seaman  consents  to  abandon  his 
right  to  wages  in  the  case  of  the  loss  of  the  ship,  or  to  abandon 
any  rights  which  he  may  have  or  obtain  in  the  nature  of  sal- 
vage, shall  be  wholly  inoperative." 

The  Bill  which  I  now  introduce  is  grounded  on  the 
provisions  quoted  from  the  two  Acts  of  the  British 
Parliament,  and  contains  two  principles.  First,  that 
seamen  shall  be  paid  their  wages  down  to  the  time 
of  the  loss  of  the  ship,  in  case  they  serve  faithfully  to 
the  last ;  and  secondly,  that  they  shall  not  be  permitted 
to  lose  their  wages  through  any  agreement  in  the  ship- 
ping articles. 

In  some  details  I  have  departed  from  the  British  Act. 
It  has  not  seemed  to  me  advisable  to  make  the  wages 
dependent  on  "  the  certificate  from  the  master  or  chief 
surviving  officer  of  the  ship,"  but  to  leave  the  question 
of  services  open  to  proof  in  any  way  according  to  the 
received  rules  of  evidence.  I  have,  therefore,  said  that 
the  Avages  shall  be  paid,  "provided  the  seaman  shall 
have  exerted  himself  to  the  utmost  to  save  the  ship, 
cargo  and  stores."  The  reasons  for  this  course  are 
clear.  Masters  are  often  part  owners  of  American 


472      WAGES    OF    SEAMEN    IN    CASE    OF    WEECK. 

ships,  and  thus  have  a  personal  interest  adverse  to  the 
sailor.  In  a  mood  of  selfishness  or  recklessness,  they 
might  refuse  the  certificate,  even  though  well  earned. 
Now,  in  constructing  a  protection  to  the  sailor,  it  does 
not  seem  prudent  to  make  his  wages  dependent  upon 
any  such  quarter.  Indeed,  it  is  hardly  just  to  take 
from  him  the  right  to  establish  his  claim  before  the 
Admiralty  Court,  merely  because  an  interested  master 
refuses  a  certificate,  when,  perhaps,  plenary  proof 
might  be  furnished  aliunde.  Moreover,  if  the  question 
were  put  in  the  control  of  the  master,  he  might  obtain 
thereby  an  improper  influence  over  the  minds  of  the 
crew,  inducing  them  even  to  sacrifice  truth  in  the 
event  of  any  litigation  between  the  owners  and  the 
underwriters. 

There  can  be  no  harm  in  leaving  the  question  of 
fact  to  be  proved  by  competent  witnesses,  like  every 
other  question  of  fact :  and  the  seamen  should  be  com- 
petent witnesses  for  each  other.  A  sagacious  court 
will  know  how  to  weigh  their  testimony,  should  it 
come  in  conflict  with  that  of  the  officer.  It  seems 
proper  that  the  master,  too,  though  a  party  to  the  suit, 
—  as  in  the  case  of  a  lihel  against  him  in  personam,  or 
in  a  suit  at  common  law,  —  should  be  competent  to 
testify  to  the  conduct  of  the  libellant  or  plaintiff;  in 
other  words,  whether  he  had  "  exerted  himself  to  the 
utmost,"  and  I  have  introduced  into  the  Bill  a  provi- 
sion accordingly. 

The  British  Act  of  7th  and  8th  Victoria  contains 
another  defect.  It  limits  the  wages  to  "  every  sur- 
viving seaman."  I  can  see  no  good  reason  why  the 
wife  and  children  of  the  sailor  who  has  perished  in  the 
forlorn  hope,  perhaps,  in  the  cause  of  all,  should  be 


WAGES    OF    SEAMEN    IN    CASE    OF    WKECK.       473 

deprived  of  the  humble  wages  so  dearly  earned  by 
their  natural  protectors,  and  thus  be  compelled  to  feel 
a  new  deprivation  added  to  their  bereavement.  In  the 
proposed  Bill  there  is  no  such  limitation. 

Beyond  this  brief  statement  I  need  not,  on  this  occa- 
sion, add  another  word.  Already  Congress  has  shown 
a  disposition  to  modify  the  rigorous  maritime  law  in 
some  of  its  provisions.  In  1851,  it  made  a  change  in 
the  liability  of  ship  owners  as  common  earners.  But 
this  very  liability  originated  to  a  certain  extent  in  the 
same  principles  from  which  is  derived  the  liability  of 
the  seamen,  if  they  fail  to  bring  the  ship  and  cargo  to 
land.  Ship  owners  and  sailors  were  both  treated  as 
insurers.  This  was  in  the  age  of  force,  before  the 
contract  of  insurance  had  spread  its  broad  protection 
over  commerce  in  every  sea.  The  seaman  should 
share  this  protection.  He  should  be  treated  as  not 
necessarily  either  a  pirate  or  a  coward. 

In  the  discussions  of  the  Senate  on  the  proposed 
change  in  the  liability  of  ship-owners,  it  was  effec- 
tively urged  by  my  immediate  predecessor,  a  distin- 
guished Senator  from  Massachusetts,  the  late  Robert 
Rantoul,  jr.,  that,  if  the  United  States  failed  to  adopt 
that  measure,  the  other  maritime  nations  would  have 
an  advantage  in  the  carrying  trade.  It  is  equally  true 
that,  unless  we  adopt  the  measure  now  proposed, 
Great  Britain  will  have  the  advantage  of  us  in  the 
rate  of  seamen's  wages ;  for,  under  her  existing  laws, 
the  sailor  can  afford  to  work  cheaper  on  board  a  Brit- 
ish ship  than  under  the  American  flag. 

The  measure  now  proposed  is  of  direct  importance 
to  the  two  hundred  thousand  sailors  constituting  the 
mercantile  marine  of  the  United  States.     It  also  con- 
40* 


474         WAGES    OF    SEAMEN    IN    CASE    OF    WBECK. 

cerns  the  three  millions  of  men  constituting  the  mer- 
cantile marine  of  the  civilized  world,  any  of  whom,  in 
the  vicissitudes  of  the  sea,  may  find  themselves  in 
American  bottoms.  I  commend  it  as  a  measure  of 
enlightened  philanthropy,  and  also  of  simple  justice. 

I   ask   that   the   Bill,  having   been  read  twice,  be 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Commerce. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  ENTERPRISE ;  ITS  NECESSITY, 

PRACTICABILITY  AND  DIGNITY,  WITH  GLIMPSES 

AT  THE  SPECIAL  DUTIES  OF  THE  NORTH. 


AN  ADDRESS  BEFORE  THE  PEOPLE  OF  NEW  YORK,  AT  THE  ME- 
TROPOLITAN THEATRE,  9  MAY,  1855. 


THIS  address  was  the  concluding  lecture  in  an  Anti-Slavery 
course  in  the  city  of  New  York.  On  the  night  of  its  delivery  the 
Chair  was  occupied  by  the  HON.  WILLIAM  JAY,  who  introduced 
Mr.  Sumner  in  the  following  words  : 

"  LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  I  have  been  requested,  on  the  part 
of  the  Society,  to  perform  the  pleasing  but  unnecessary  office  of 
introducing  to  you  the  honored  and  well-known  advocate  of  Jus- 
tice, Humanity  and  Freedom,  Charles  Sumner.  It  is  not  for  his 
learning  and  eloquence  that  I  commend  him  to  your  respectful 
attention  ;  for  learning,  eloquence,  and  even  theology  itself,  have 
been  prostituted  in  the  service  of  an  institution  well  described  by 
John  Wesley  as  the  sum  of  all  villanies.  I  introduce  him  to  you 
as  a  Northern  Senator  on  whom  nature  has  conferred  the  unusual 
gift  of  a  backbone  —  a  man  who,  standing  erect  on  the  floor  of 
Congress,  amid  creeping  things  from  the  North,  with  Christian 
fidelity  denounces  the  stupendous  wickedness  of  the  Fugitive  law 
and  Nebraska  perfidy,  and  in  the  name  of  Liberty,  Humanity 
and  Religion,  demands  the  repeal  of  those  most  atrocious  enact- 
ments. May  the  words  he  is  about  to  utter  be  impressed  on 
your  consciences,  and  influence  your  conduct." 

As  soon  as  the  applause  had  subsided,  Mr.  SUMNER  said  : 
I  am  not  insensible,  sir,  to  this  generous  applause.    Pardon 

[475] 


476  ANTI-SLAVEBY    ENTEBPBISE  J    ITS 

me  if  I  say,  I  cannot  accept  it  for  myself,  but  for  the  cause 
in  whose  behalf  I  am  here  to  speak.  Let  me  add  that  I  am 
proud  to  be  introduced  on  this  occasion  by  one  whose  name,  il- 
lustrious by  a  father's  renown,  is  also  illustrious  by  his  own 
noble  devotion  to  the  Plights  of  Man. 

ME.  SUMNER  then  proceeded  to  give  the  following  address  : 

HISTORY  abounds  in  vicissitudes.  From  weakness 
arid  humility,  men  ascend  to  power  and  place.  From 
defeat  and  disparagement,  enterprises  are  lifted  to 
triumph  and  acceptance.  The  martyr  of  to-day  is- 
gratefully  enshrined  on  the  morrow.  The  stone  that 
the  builders  rejected  is  made  the  head  of  the  corner. 
Thus  it  always  has  been,  and  ever  will  be. 

Only  twenty  years  ago,  —  in  1835,  —  the  friends  of 
the  slave  in  our  country  were  weak  and  humble,  while 
their  great  Enterprise,  just  then  showing  itself,  was 
trampled  down  and  -despised.  The  small  companies, 
gathered  together  in  the  name  of  Freedom,  were  inter- 
rupted and  often  dispersed  by  riotous  mobs.  At  Bos- 
ton, a  feeble  association  of  women,  called  the  Female 
Anti- Slavery  Society,  convened  in  a  small  room  of  an 
upper  story  in  an  obscure  building,  was  insulted  and 
then  driven  out  of  doors  by  a  frantic  crowd,  politely 
termed  at  the  time,  an  assemblage  of  "  gentleiten  of 
property  and  standing,"  which,  after  various  deeds  of 
violence  and  vileness  next  directed  itself  upon  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  —  known  as  the  determined  editor  of 
the  Liberator,  and  the  originator  of  the  Anti-Slavery 
Enterprise  in  our  day,  —  then  ruthlessly  tearing  him 
away,  amidst  savage  threats  and  with  a  halter  about 
his  neck,  dragged  him  through  the  streets,  until,  at 
last,  guilty  only  of  loving  liberty,  if  not  wisely,  too 
well,  this  unoffending  citizen  was  thrust  into  the  com- 


NECESSITY,    PBACTICABILITY   AND   DIGNITY.    477 

mon  jail  for  protection  against  an  infuriated  populace. 
Nor  was  Boston  alone.  Even  villages,  in  remote  rural 
solitude,  belched  forth,  in  similar  outrage ;  while  the 
large  towns,  like  Providence,  New  Haven,  Utica,  Wor- 
cester, Alton,  Cincinnati,  Baltimore,  Philadelphia  and 
New  York,  became  so  many  fiery  craters,  overflowing 
with  rage  and  madness.  What  lawless  violence  failed 
to  accomplish  was  next  urged  through  the  forms  of 
law.  By  solemn  legislative  acts,  the  Slave  States 
called  on  the  Free  States  "  promptly  and  effectually 
"to  suppress  all  associations  within  their  respective 
limits  purporting  to  be  Abolition  Societies;"  and 
Rhode  Island,  Massachusetts  and  New  York,  basely 
hearkened  to  the  base  proposition.  The  press,  too, 
with  untold  power,  exerted  itself  in  this  behalf,  while 
the  pulpit,  the  politician  and  the  merchant,  conspired 
to  stifle  discussion,  until  the  voice  of  Freedom  was 
hushed  to  a  whisper,  "  alas  !  almost  afraid  to  know 
itself." 

Since  then  —  in  the  lapse  of  a  few  years  only  —  a 
change  has  taken  place.  Instead  of  tKose  small  com- 
panies, counted  by  tens,  we  have  now  this  mighty 
assembly,  counted  by  thousands  ;  instead  of  an  insig- 
nificant apartment,  like  that  in  Boston,  the  mere 
appendage  of  a  printing-office,  where,  as  in  the  man- 
ger itself,  Truth  was  cradled,  we  have  now  this  Metro- 
politan Hall,  ample  in  proportions  and  central  in 
place ;  instead  of  a  profane  and  clamorous  mob,  beat- 
ing at  our  gates,  dispersing  our  assembly,  and  making 
one  of  our  number  the  victim  of  its  fury,  we  have  now 
peace  and  harmony  at  unguarded  doors,  ruffled  only 
by  a  generous  competition  to  participate  in  this  occa- 
sion;  while  legislatures  openly  declare  their  sym- 


478  AXTI-SLAVEKY    ENTERPRISE  J    ITS 

pathies ;  villages,  towns  and  cities  vie  in  the  new 
manifestation ;  and  the  press  itself,  with  increased 
power,  heralds,  applauds  and  extends  the  prevailing 
influence,  which,  overflowing  from  every  fountain,  and 
pouring  through  every  channel,  at  last,  by  the  awakened 
voice  of  pulpit,  politician  and  merchant,  swells  into  an 
irrepressible  cry. 

Here  is  a  great  change,  worthy  of  notice  and  memory, 
for  it  attests  the  first  stage  of  victory.  Slavery,  in  all 
its  many-sided  wrong,  still  continues  ;  but  here  in  this 
metropolis,  —  ay,  sir,  and  throughout  the  whole  North, 
—  freedom  of  discussion  is  at  length  secured.  And 
this,  I  say,  is  the  first  stage  of  victory  —  herald  of  the 
transcendent  Future  ; 

"  Hark  !  a  glad  voice  the  lonely  desert  cheers  ; 
Prepare  the  way  !  a  God,  a  God  appears  ! 
A  God  !  a  God  !  the  vocal  hills  reply, 
The  rocks  proclaim  th'  approaching  Deity."  * 

Nor  is  there  anything  peculiar  in  the  trials  to  which 
our  cause  has  been  exposed.  Thus  in  all  ages  has 
Truth  been  encountered.  At  first  persecuted,  gagged, 
silenced,  crucified,  she  has  cried  out  from  the  prison, 
from  the  torture,  from  the  stake,  from  the  cross,  until 
at  last  her  voice  has  been  heard.  And  when  that 
voice  is  really  heard,  whether  in  martyr  cries,  or  in  the 
earthquake  tones  of  civil  convulsion,  or  in  the  calmness 
of  ordinary  speech,  such  as  I  now  employ,  or  in  that 
still  small  utterance  inaudible  to  the  common  ear,  then 
is  the  beginning  of  victory  !  "  Give  me  where  to  stand, 
and  I  will  move  the  world,"  said  Archimedes  ;  and 
Truth  asks  no  more  than  did  the  master  of  geometry. 

*  Pope's  Messiah. 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY   AND    DIGNITY.    479 

Viewed  in  this  aspect,  the  present  occasion  rises 
above  any  ordinary  course  of  lectures  or  series  of  po- 
litical meetings.  It  is  the  inauguration  of  Freedom. 
From  this  time  forward,  her  voice  of  warning  and  com- 
mand cannot  be  silenced.  The  sensitive  sympathies 
of  property  may,  in  this  commercial  mart,  once  again 
recognize  property  in  man ;  the  watchful  press  itself 
may  falter  or  fail,  but  the  vantage-ground  of  free  dis- 
cussion now  achieved  cannot  be  lost.  On  this  I  take 
my  stand,  and,  as  from  the  Mount  of  Vision,  behold 
the  whole  field  of  our  great  controversy  spread  before 
me.  There  is  no  point,  topic,  fact,  matter,  reason  or 
argument,  touching  the  question  between  Slavery  and 
Freedom,  which  is  not  now  open.  Of  all  these  I  might, 
perhaps,  aptly  select  some  one  and  confine  myself  to 
its  development.  But  I  should  not,  in  this  way,  best 
satisfy  the  seeming  requirements  of  the  occasion.  Ac- 
cording to  the  invitation  of  your  Committee,  I  was  to 
make  an  address,  introductory  to  the  present  course 
of  lectures,  but  was  prevented  by  ill-health.  And 
now,  at  the  close  of  the  course,  I  am  to  say  what  I 
failed  to  say  at  its  beginning.  Not  as  caucus  or  as 
Congress  can  I  address  you ;  nor  am  I  moved  to  under- 
take a  political  harangue  or  constitutional  argument. 
Out  of  the  occasion  let  me  speak,  and,  discarding  any 
individual  topic,  aim  to  exhibit  the  entire  field,  in  all 
its  divisions  and  subdivisions,  with  all  its  metes  and 
bounds. 

My  subject  will  be  THE  NECESSITY,  PRACTICA- 
BILITY AND  DIGNITY  OF  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  ENTER- 
PRISE, WITH  GLIMPSES  AT  THE  SPECIAL  DUTIES  OP 

THE  NORTH.     By  this  enterprise  I  do  not  mean  the 


480  ANTI-SILVERY    ENTEKPBISE  J    ITS 

efforts  of  any  restricted  circle,  sect  or  party,  but  the 
cause  of  the  slave,  in  all  its  forms  and  degrees,  and 
under  all  its  names,  —  whether  inspired  by  the  pulpit, 
the  press,  the  economist  or  the  politician,  —  whether  in 
the  early,  persistent  and  comprehensive  demands  of 
Garrison,  the  gentler  utterances  of  Channing,  or  the 
strictly  constitutional  endeavors  of  others  now  actually 
sharing  the  public  councils  of  the  country.  To  carry 
through  this  review,  under  its  different  heads,  I  shall 
not  hesitate  to  meet  the  objections  which  have  been 
urged  against  it,  so  far  at  least  as  I  am  aware  of  them. 
And  now,  as  I  speak  to  you  seriously,  I  venture  to  ask 
your  serious  attention  even  to  the  end.  Not  easily  can 
a  public  address  reach  that  highest  completeness  which 
is  found  in  mingling  the  useful  and  the  agreeable  ;  but 
I  desire  to  say,  that,  in  this  arrangement  and  co-ordi- 
nation of  my  remarks  to-night,  I  seek  to  cultivate 
that  highest  courtesy  of  a  speaker,  which  is  found  in 
clearness. 

I.  I  begin  with  the  NECESSITY  of  the  Anti-Slavery 
Enterprise.  In  the  wrong  of  Slavery,  as  defined  by 
existing  law,  this  necessity  is  plainly  apparent ;  nor 
can  any  man  within  the  sound  of  my  voice,  who  listens 
to  the  authentic  words  of  the  law,  hesitate  in  my  con- 
clusion. A  wrong  so  grievous  and  unquestionable 
should  not  be  allowed  to  continue.  For  the  honor  of 
human  nature,  and  for  the  good  of  all  concerned,  it 
should  at  once  cease  to  exist.  On  this  simple  statement, 
as  a  corner-stone,  I  found  the  necessity  of  the  Anti- 
Slavery  Enterprise. 

I  do  not  dwell,  sir,  on  the  many  tales  which  come 
from  the  house  of  bondage  ;  on  the  bitter  sorrows  there 


NECESSITY,    PKACTICABIIJTY    AND    DIGNITY.    481 

undergone  ;  on  the  flesh,  galled  by  the  manacle  or 
spirting  blood  beneath  the  lash ;  on  the  human  form 
mutilated  by  the  knife,  or  seared  by  red-hot  iron ;  on 
the  ferocious  scent  of  blood-hounds  in  chase  of  human 
prey  ;  on  the  sale  of  fathers  and  mothers,  husbands 
and  wives,  brothers  and  sisters,  little  children  —  even 
infants  —  at  the  auction-block ;  on  the  practical  prostra- 
tion of  all  rights,  all  ties,  and  even  all  hope  ;  on  the 
deadly  injury  to  morals,  substituting  concubinage  for 
marriage,  and  changing  the  whole  land  of  Slavery  into 
a  by-word  of  shame,  only  fitly  pictured  by  the  language 
of  Dante  when  he  called  his  own  degraded  country  a 
House  of  111  Fame ;  *  and  last  of  all,  on  the  pernicious 
influence  upon  the  master  as  well  as  the  slave,  showing 
itself  too  often,  even  by  his  own  confession,  in  rude- 
ness of  manners  and  character,  and  especially  in  that 
blindness  which  renders  him  insensible  to  the  wrongs 
he  upholds,  while  he, 

" so  perfect  is  his  misery, 

Not  once  perceives  his  foul  disfigurement, 
But  boasts  himself  more  comely  than  before."  t 

On  these  things  I  do  not  dwell,  although  volumes  are 
at  hand  of  unquestionable  facts  and  of  illustrative  story, 
so  just  and  happy  as  to  vie  with  fact,  out  of  which  I 
might  draw,  until,  like  Macbeth,  you  had  supped  full 
of  horrors. 

But  all  these  I  put  aside ;  not  because  I  do  not 
regard  them  of  moment  in  exhibiting  the  true  character 
of  Slavery,  but  because  I  desire  to  present  this  argu- 
ment on  grounds  above  all  controversy,  impeachment, 

*  Purgat.  —  Canto  VI.     Jlhi  servo,  Italia bordello  ! 

t  Milton's  Comus. 
41 


482  ANTI-SLAVERY    ENTERPRISE  J    ITS 

or  suspicion,  even  from  slave-masters  themselves.  Not 
on  triumphant  story,  not  even  on  indisputable  facts,  do 
I  now  accuse  Slavery,  but  on  its  character,  as  revealed 
in  its  own  simple  definition  of  itself.  Out  of  its  own 
mouth  do  I  condemn  it.  By  the  law  of  Slavery,  man, 
created  in  the  image  of  God,  is  divested  of  his  human 
character,  and  declared  to  be  a  mere  chattel.  That 
this  statement  may  not  seem  to  be  put  forward  without 
precise  authority,  I  quote  the  law  of  two  different 
States.  The  civil  code  of  Louisiana  thus  defines  a 
slave : 

"  A  slave  is  one  who  is  in  the  power  of  a  master  to  whom  he 
belongs.  The  master  may  sell  him,  dispose  of  his  person,  his 
industry,  and  his  labor.  He  can  do  nothing,  possess  nothing, 
nor  acquire  anything  but  what  must  belong  to  his  master."  — 
Civil  Code,  Art.  35. 

The  law  of  another  polished  slave  State  gives  this 
definition : 

"  Slaves  shall  be  deemed,  sold,  taken,  reputed  and  adjudged 
in  law  to  be  chattels  personal,  in  the  hands  of  their  owners,  and 
possessors,  and  their  executors,  administrators  and  assigns,  to  all 
intents,  constructions  and  purposes  whatsoever."  —  2  Brev. 
Dig.  229.  (South  Carolina.) 

And  a  careful  writer,  Judge  Stroud,  in  a  work  of 
juridical  as  well  as  philanthropic  merit,  thus  sums  up 
the  law : 

"  The  cardinal  principle  of  Slavery  —  that  the  slave  is  not  to 
be  ranked  among  sentient  beings,  but  among  things  —  is  an 
article  of  property  —  a  chattel  personal  —  obtains  as  undoubted 
law  in  all  of  these  (the  slave)  States." —  Stroud' s  Laws  of 
Slavery,  22. 

Sir,  this  is  enough.  As  out  of  its  small  egg  crawls 
forth  the  slimy,  scaly,  reptile  crocodile,  so  out  of  this 
simple  definition  crawls  forth  the  whole  slimy,  scaly, 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY    AND    DIGNITY.    483 

reptile  monstrosity,  by  which,  a  man  is  changed  into  a 
chattel,  —  a  person  is  converted  into  a  thing,  —  a  soul 
is  transmuted  into  merchandise.  According  to  this 
very  definition,  the  slave  is  held  simply  for  the  good 
of  his  master,  to  whose  behests,  his  life,  liberty  and 
happiness  are  devoted,  and  by  whom  he  may  be  bar- 
tered, leased,  mortgaged,  bequeathed,  invoiced,  shipped 
as  cargo,  stored  as  goods,  sold  on  execution,  knocked 
off  at  public  auction,  and  even  staked  at  the  gaming- 
table on  the  hazard  of  a  card  or  die.  The  slave  may 
seem  to  have  a  wife  ;  but  he  has  not ;  for  his  wife  be- 
longs to  his  master.  He  may  seem  to  have  a  child ;  but 
he  has  not ;  for  his  child  belongs  to  his  master.  He 
may  be  filled  with  the  desire  of  knowledge,  opening  to 
him  the  gates  of  hope  on  earth  and  in  heaven  ;  but  the 
master  may  impiously  close  this  sacred  pursuit.  Thus 
is  he  robbed  not  merely  of  privileges,  but  of  himself ;  not 
merely  of  money  and  labor,  but  of  wife  and  children  ; 
not  merely  of  time  and  opportunity,  but  of  every  assur- 
ance of  happiness  ;  not  merely  of  earthly  hope,  but  of 
all  those  divine  aspirations  that  spring  from  the  Foun- 
tain of  Light.  He  is  not  merely  restrained  in  liberty, 
but  totally  deprived  of  it;  not  merely  curtailed  in 
rights,  but  absolutely  stripped  of  them ;  not  merely 
loaded  with  burthens,  but  changed  into  a  beast  of 
burthen ;  not  merely  bent  in  countenance  to  the  earth, 
but  sunk  to  the  legal  level  of  a  quadruped ;  not  merely 
exposed  to  personal  cruelty,  but  deprived  of  his  charac- 
ter as  a  person ;  not  merely  compelled  to  involuntary 
labor,  but  degraded  to  be  a  rude  thing;  not  merely 
shut  out  from  knowledge,  but  wrested  from  his  place 
in  the  human  family.  And  all  this,  sir,  is  according 
to  the  simple  law  of  Slavery. 


484  ANTI-SIAYEBY    ENTEBPKISE  ;    ITS 

Nor  is  even  this  all.  The  law,  by  cumulative  pro- 
visions, positively  forbids  that  a  slave  shall  be  taught 
to  read.  Hear  this,  fellow-citizens,  and  confess,  that 
no  barbarism  of  despotism,  no  extravagance  of  tyranny, 
no  excess  of  impiety  can  be  more  blasphemous  or 
deadly.  "  Train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go," 
is  the  lesson  of  sacred  wisdom  ;  but  the  law  of  Slavery 
boldly  prohibits  any  such  training,  and  dooms  the  child 
to  hopeless  ignorance  and  degradation.  "  Let  there  be 
light,"  was  the  Divine  utterance  at  the  very  dawn  of 
creation,  —  and  this  commandment,  travelling  with  the 
ages  and  the  hours,  still  speaks  with  the  voice  of  God ; 
but  the  law  of  Slavery  says,  "  Let  there  be  darkness." 

But  it  is  earnestly  averred  that  slave-masters  are 
humane,  and  that  slaves  are  treated  with  kindness. 
These  averments,  however,  I  properly  put  aside,  pre- 
cisely as  I  have  already  put  aside  the  multitudinous 
illustrations  from  the  cruelty  of  Slavery.  On  the  sim- 
ple letter  of  the  law  I  take  my  stand,  and  do  not  go 
beyond  what  is  there  nominated.  The  masses  of  men 
are  not  better  than  their  laws,  and,  whatever  may  be 
the  eminence  of  individual  virtue,  it  is  not  reasonable 
to  infer  that  the  masses  of  slave-masters  are  better  than 
the  law  of  Slavery.  And,  since  this  law  submits  the 
slave  to  their  irresponsible  control,  with  power  to  bind 
and  to  scourge  —  to  shut  the  soul  from  knowledge  — 
to  separate  families  —  to  unclasp  the  infant  from  a 
mother's  breast,  and  the  wife  from  a  husband's  arms, 
—  it  is  natural  to  conclude  that  such  enormities  are 
sanctioned  by  them,  while  the  brutal  prohibition  of 
instruction  —  by  supplementary  law  —  gives  crowning 
evidence  of  their  complete  complicity.  And  this  con- 
clusion must  exist  unquestioned,  just  so  long  as  the 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY    AND    DIGNITY.      485 

law  exists  unrepealed.  Cease,  then,  to  blazon  the 
humanity  of  slave-masters.  Tell  me  not  of  the  lenity 
with  which  this  cruel  law  is  tempered  to  its  unhappy 
subjects.  Tell  me  not  of  the  sympathy  which  over- 
flows from  the  mansion  of  the  master  to  the  cabin  of 
the  slave.  In  vain  you  assert  these  instances.  In  vain 
you  show  that  there  are  individuals  who  do  not  exert 
the  wickedness  of  the  law.  The  law  still  endures. 
Slavery,  which  it  defines  and  upholds,  continues  to 
outrage  Public  Opinion,  and,  within  the  limits  of  our 
Republic,  upwards  of  three  millions  of  human  beings, 
guilty  only  of  a  skin  not  colored  like  your  own,  are 
left  the  victims  of  its  unrighteous,  irresponsible  power. 

Power  divorced  from  right  is  devilish ;  power  with- 
out the  check  of  responsibility  is  tyrannical ;  and  I 
need  not  go  back  to  the  authority  of  Plato,  when  I 
assert,  that  the  most  complete  injustice  is  that  which 
is  erected  into  the  form  of  law.  But  all  these  things 
concur  in  Slavery.  It  is,  then,  on  the  testimony  of 
slave-masters,  solemnly,  legislatively,  judicially  attested 
in  the  very  law  itself,  that  I  now  arraign  this  institu- 
tion, as  an  outrage  upon  man  and  his  Creator.  And 
here  is  the  necessity  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Enterprise. 
A  wrong  so  transcendent,  so  loathsome,  so  direful, 
must  be  encountered  wherever  it  can  be  reached,-  and 
the  battle  must  be  continued  without  truce  or  com- 
promise, until  the  field  is  entirely  won.  Freedom  and 
Slavery  can  hold  no  divided  empire  ;  nor  can  there 
be  any  true  repose  until  Freedom  is  everywhere  estab- 
lished. 

To  the  necessity  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Enterprise,  there 
are  two  —  and  only  two  —  vital  objections  ;  one  founded 
on  the  alleged  distinction  of  race,  and  the  other  on  the 
41* 


486  A.NTI-SI.AVEBY   ENTERPRISE  ;    ITS 

alleged  sanction  of  Christianity.  All  other  objections 
are  of  an  inferior  character,  or  are  directed  logically  at 
its  practicability.  Of  these  two  leading  objections,  let 
me  briefly  speak. 

1.  And,  first,  of  the  alleged  distinction  of  race. 
This  objection  itself  assumes  two  different  forms,  one 
founded  011  a  prophetic  malediction  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  the  other  on  the  professed  observations  of 
recent  science.  Its  importance  is  apparent  in  the  obvi- 
ous fact,  that,  unless  such  distinction  be  clearly  and 
unmistakably  established,  every  argument  by  which  our 
own  freedom  is  vindicated,  —  every  applause  awarded 
to  the  successful  rebellion  of  our  fathers,  —  every  in- 
dignant word  ever  hurled  against  the  enslavement  of 
our  white  fellow-citizens  by  Algerine  corsairs,  must 
plead  trumpet-tongued  against  the  deep  damnation  of 
Slavery,  whether  white  or  black. 

It  is  said  that  the  Africans  are  the  posterity  of  Ham, 
the  son  of  Noah,  through  Canaan,  who  was  cursed  by 
Noah,  to  be  the  servant  of  his  brethren,  and  that  this 
malediction  has  fallen  upon  all  his  descendants,  including 
the  unhappy  Africans,  —  who  are  accordingly  devoted 
by  God,  through  unending  generations,  to  unending 
bondage.  Such  is  the  favorite  argument  often  put 
forth  at  the  South,  and  more  than  once  directly  ad- 
dressed to  myself.  Here,  for  instance,  is  a  passage 
from  a  letter  recently  received  ;  "  You  need  not  per- 
sist," says  the  writer,  "  in  confounding  Japheth's  chil- 
dren with  Ham's,  and  making  both  races  one,  and 
arguing  on  their  rights  as  those  of  man  broadly."  And 
I  have  been  seriously  assured  that  until  this  objection 
is  answered,  it  will  be  in  vain  to  press  my  views  upon 
Congress  or  the  country.  Listen  now  to  the  texts 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY   AND    DIGNITY.      487 

of  the  Old  Testament  which   are   so  strangely  em- 
ployed : 

"  And  he  (Noah)  said,  cursed  be  Canaan  :  a  servant  of  ser- 
vants shall  he  be  unto  his  brethren.  And  he  said,  Blessed  be 
the  Lord  God  of  Shem  ;  and  Canaan  shall  be  his  servant.  God 
shall  enlarge  Japheth,  and  he  shall  dwell  in  the  tents  of  Shem, 
and  Canaan  shall  be  his  servant."  —  Genesis,  chap.  ix.  25-27. 

That  is  all ;  and  I  need  only  read  these  words  in 
order  to  expose  the  whole  transpicuous  humbug.  But 
I  am  tempted  to  add,  that,  to  justify  this  objection,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  maintain  at  least  five  different 
propositions,  as  essential  links  in  the  chain  of  the 
African  slave  ;  first ,  that,  by  this  malediction,  Canaan 
himself  was  actually  changed  into  a  chattel,  whereas, 
he  is  simply  made  the  servant  of  his  brethren ;  secondly, 
that  not  merely  Canaan,  but  all  his  posterity,  to  the 
remotest  generation,  was  so  changed,  whereas  the 
language  has  no  such  extent ;  thirdly,  that  the  African 
actually  belongs  to  the  posterity  of  Canaan,  —  an 
ethnographical  assumption  absurdly  difficult  to  estab- 
lish ;  fourthly,  that  each  of  the  descendants  of  Shem 
and  Japheth  has  a  right  to  hold  an  African  fellow-man 
as  a  chattel,  —  a  proposition  which  finds  no  semblance 
of  support  ;  and,  fifthly,  that  every  slave-master  is 
truly  descended  from  Shem  or  Japheth,  —  a  pedigree 
which  no  anxiety  or  audacity  can  prove !  This  plain 
analysis,  which  may  fitly  excite  a  smile,  shows  the  five- 
fold absurdity  of  an  attempt  to  found  this  revolting 
wrong  on 

"  Any  successive  title,  long  and  dark, 
Drawn  from  the  mouldy  rolls  of  Noah's  ark."  * 

The  small  bigotry  which  could  find  comfort  in  these 
*  Dryden's  Absalom  and  Achitophel. 


488  ANTI-SLAYERY    ENTERPRISE  J    ITS 

texts,  has  been  lately  exalted  by  the  voice  of  science, 
which,  has  undertaken  to  suggest  that  the  different 
races  of  men  are  not  derived  from  a  single  pair,  but 
from  several  distinct  stocks,  according  to  their  several 
distinct  characteristics  ;  and  it  has  been  audaciously 
argued  that  the  African  is  so  far  inferior,  as  to  lose  all 
title  to  that  liberty  which  is  the  birthright  of  the  lordly 
white.  Now  I  have  neither  time  nor  disposition  on 
this  occasion,  to  discuss  the  question  of  the  unity  of 
the  races  ;  nor  is  it  necessary  to  my  present  purpose. 
It  may  be  that  the  different  races  of  men  proceeded 
from  different  stocks ;  but  there  is  but  one  great  Hu- 
man Family,  in  which  Caucasian  and  African,  Chinese 
and  Indian,  are  all  brothers,  children  of  one  Father, 
and  heirs  to  one  happiness,  —  alike  on  earth  and  in 
heaven.  "  Star-eyed  science  "  cannot  shake  this  ever- 
lasting truth.  It  may  vainly  exhibit  peculiarities  in 
the  African,  by  which  he  is  distinguishable  from  the 
Caucasian.  It  may,  in  his  physical  form  and  intellect- 
ual character,  presume  to  find  the  stamp  of  permanent 
inferiority.  But  by  no  reach  of  learning,  by  no  torture 
of  fact,  by  no  effrontery  of  dogma,  can  it  show  that  he 
is  not  a  man.  And  as  a  man  he  stands  before  you  an 
unquestionable  member  of  the  Human  Family,  and 
entitled  to  all  the  rights  of  man.  You  can  claim  nothing 
for  yourself,  as  man,  which  you  must  not  accord  to  him. 
Life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  —  which  you 
proudly  declare  to  be  your  own  inalienable,  God-given 
rights,  and  to  the  support  of  which  your  fathers  pledged 
their  lives,  fortunes  and  sacred  honor,  are  his  by  the 
same  immortal  title  that  they  are  yours. 

2.  From  the  objection  founded  on  the  alleged  dis- 
tinction of  race,  I  pass  to  that  other  founded  on  the 


NECESSITY,    PBACTICABILITY   AND   DIGNITY.      489 

alleged  sanction  of  Slavery  by  Christianity.  And, 
striving  to  be  brief,  I  shall  not  undertake  to  reconcile 
texts  often  quoted  from  the  Old  Testament,  which, 
whatever  may  be  their  import,  are  all  absorbed  in  the 
New ;  nor  shall  I  stop  to  consider  the  precise  inter- 
pretation of  the  oft-quoted  phrase,  Servants,  obey  your 
masters ;  nor  seek  to  weigh  any  such  imperfect  injunc- 
tion in  the  scales  against  those  grand  commandments, 
on  which  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets.  Surely, 
in  the  example  and  teachings  of  the  Saviour,  who  lifted 
up  the  down-trodden,  who  enjoined  purity  of  life,  and 
overflowed  with  tenderness  even  to  little  children, 
human  ingenuity  can  find  no  apology  for  an  institution 
which  tramples  on  man,  —  which  defiles  woman,  — 
and  sweeps  little  children  beneath  the  hammer  of  the 
auctioneer.  If  to  any  one  these  things  seem  to  have 
the  license  of  Christianity,  it  is  only  because  they  have 
first  secured  a  license  in  his  own  soul.  Men  are  prone 
to  find  in  uncertain,  disconnected  texts,  a  confirmation 
of  their  own  personal  prejudices  or  preposessions.  And 
I  —  who  am  no  divine,  but  only  a  simple  layman  — 
make  bold  to  say,  that  whoever  finds  in  the  Gospel 
any  sanction  of  Slavery,  finds  there  merely  a  reflection 
of  himself.  On  a  matter  so  irresistibly  clear,  authority 
is  superfluous  ;  but  an  eminent  character,  who  as  poet 
makes  us  forget  his  high  place  as  philosopher,  and  as 
philosopher,  makes  us  forget  his  high  place  as  theolo- 
gian, has  exposed  the  essential  antagonism  between 
Christianity  and  Slavery,  in  a  few  pregnant  words 
which  you  will  be  glad  to  hear,  —  particularly  as,  I 
believe,  they  have  not  been  before  introduced  into  this 
discussion.  "  By  a  principle  essential  to  Christianity," 
says  Coleridge,  "  a,  person  is  eternally  differenced  from  a 


490  AVTI-SLAVEBY  ENTEBPBISE  J    ITS 

tiling ;  so  that  the  idea  of  a  Human  Being  necessarily 
excludes  the  idea  of  property  in  that  Being."  * 

With  regret,  though  not  with  astonishment,  I  learn 
that  a  Boston  divine  has  sought  to  throw  the  seamless 
garment  of  Christ  over  this  shocking  wrong.  But  I 
am  patient,  and  see  clearly  how  vain  will  be  his  effort, 
when  I  call  to  mind,  that,  within  this  very  century, 
other  divines  sought  to  throw  the  same  seamless  gar- 
ment over  the  more  shocking  slave-trade;  and  that, 
among  many  publications,  a  little  book,  was  then  put 
forth  with  the  name  of  a  reverend  clergyman  on  the 
title-page,  to  prove  that  "  the  African  trade  for  negro 
slaves  is  consistent  with  the  principles  of  humanity 
and  revealed  religion ;  "  f  and,  thinking  of  these 
things,  I  am  ready  to  say  with  Shakespeare, 

" In  religion, 

What  damned  error,  but  some  sober  brow 
Will  bless  it  and  approve  it  with  a  text  ?  " 

In  the  support  of  Slavery,  it  is  the  habit  to  per- 
vert texts  and  to  invent  authority.  Even  St.  Paul  is 
vouched  for  a  wrong  which  his  Christian  life  rebukes. 
Great  stress  is  now  laid  on  his  example,  as  it  appears 
in  the  epistle  to  Philemon,  written  at  Rome,  and  sent 
by  Onesimus,  a  servant.  From  the  single  chapter 
constituting  the  entire  epistle,  I  take  the  following 
passage,  in  ten  verses,  which  is  strangely  invoked  for 
Slavery : 

"  I  beseech  theefor  my  son  Onesimus,  whom  I  have  begotten 
in  my  bonds  ;  which  in  time  past  was  to  thee  unprofitable,  but 

*  Coleridge's  Dissertation  introductory  to  the  Ency.  Metrop. 

t  This  was  by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Thompson.  Boswell's  Defence 
of  the  Slave-trade  was  kindred  in  character.  Life  of  Johnson, 
vol.  iv.  p.  55. 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY    AND    DIGNITY.       491 

now  profitable  to  thee  and  to  me  ;  whom  I  have  sent  again ;  thou, 
therefore,  receive  him,  that  is,  mine  own  bowels  ;  whom  I  would 
have  retained  with  me,  that  in  thy  stead  he  might  have  minis- 
tered unto  me  in  the  bonds  of  the  gospel  ;  but  without  thy  mind 
would  I  do  nothing,  that  thy  benefit  should  not  be  as  it  were  of 
necessity,  but  willingly.  For  perhaps  he  therefore  departed  for 
a  season,  that  thou  shouldst  receive  him  for  ever  ;  not  now  as  a 
servant,  but  above  a  servant,  a  brother  beloved,  specially  to  me, 
but  how  much  more  unto  thee,  both  in  the  flesh  and  in  the  Lord  ? 
If  thou  count  me,  therefore,  a  partner,  receive  him  as  myself.  If 
he  hath  wronged  thee,  or  oweth  thee  aught,  put  that  on  mine  ac- 
count. I,  Paul,  have  written  it  with  mine  own  hand,  I  will  repay 
it  ;  albeit,  I  do  not  say  to  thee  how  thou  owest  unto  me  even 
thine  own  self  besides."  — Epistle  to  Philemon,  verses  10-  19. 

Out  of  this  affectionate  epistle,  in  which  St.  Paul 
calls  the  converted  servant,  Onesimus,  his  son,  pre- 
cisely as  in  another  epistle  he  calls  Timothy  his  son, 
Slavery  has  been  elaborately  vindicated,  and  the  great 
Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  has  been  made  the  very  tute- 
lary saint  of  the  Slave-hunter.  Now,  without  relying 
on  minute  criticism,  to  infer  his  real  judgment  of 
Slavery  from  his  condemnation  on  another  occasion  of 
"  men-stealers,"  or,  according  to  the  original  text, 
slave-traders,  in  company  with  "  murderers  of  fathers, 
and  murderers  of  mothers,"  and  without  undertaking 
to  show  that  the  present  epistle,  when  truly  interpreted, 
is  a  protest  against  Slavery,  and  a  voice  for  Freedom, 
—  all  of  which  might  be  done,  —  I  content  myself  by 
calling  attention  to  two  things,  apparent  on  its  face, 
and  in  themselves  an  all-sufficient  response.  First, 
while  it  appears  that  Onesimus  had  been  in  some  way 
the  servant  of  Philemon,  it  does  not  appear  that  he 
had  ever  been  held  as  a  slave,  much  less  as  a  chattel ; 
and  how  gross  and  monstrous  is  the  effort  to  derive  a 


492  ANTI-SI,AVEBY    ENTEBPBISEJ    ITS 

wrong,  by  which  man  is  changed  to  a  chattel,  out  of 
words,  whether  in  the  Constitution  of  our  country,  or 
in  the  Bible,  which  do  not  explicitly,  unequivocally 
and  exclusively  define  this  wrong !  Secondly,  in 
charging  Onesimus  with  this  epistle  to  Philemon, 
the  Apostle  announces  him  as  "  not  now  a  servant, 
but  above  a  servant,  a  brother  beloved,"  and  he 
enjoins  upon  his  correspondent  the  hospitality  due 
only  to  a  freeman,  saying  expressly,  "  If  thou  count 
me,  therefore,  a  partner,  receive  him  as  myself ;  "  ay, 
sir,  not  as  slave,  not  even  as  servant,  but  as  a 
brother  beloved,  even  as  the  Apostle  himself.  Thus 
with  apostolic  pen  wrote  Paul  to  his  disciple,  Philemon. 
Beyond  all  doubt,  in  these  words  of  gentleness,  bene- 
diction and  emancipation,  dropping  with  celestial, 
soul-awakening  power,  there  can  be  no  justification  for 
a  conspiracy,  which,  beginning  with  the  treachery  of 
Iscariot,  and  the  temptation  of  pieces  of  silver,  seeks, 
by  fraud,  brutality  and  violence,  through  officers  of 
the  law  armed  to  the  teeth,  like  pirates,  and  amidst 
soldiers  who  degrade  their  uniform,  to  hurl  a  fellow- 
man  back  into  the  lash-resounding  den  of  American 
Slavery ;  and  if  any  one  can  thus  pervert  this  benefi- 
cent example,  allow  me  to  say,  that  he  gives  too 
much  occasion  to  doubt  his  intelligence  or  his  sin- 
cerity. 

Certainly  I  am  right  in  thus  stripping  from  Slavery 
the  apology  of  Christianity,  which  it  has  tenaciously 
hugged  ;  and  here  I  leave  the  first  part  of  my  subject, 
assuming  against  every  objection  the  Necessity  of  our 
Enterprise. 

II.  I  am  now  brought,  in  the  second  place,  to  con- 


NECESSITY,    PBACTICABILITY    AND   DIGNITY.    493 

sider  the  PBACTICABILITY  of  the  Enterprise.  And 
here  the  way  is  easy.  In  showing  its  necessity,  I 
have  already  demonstrated  its  practicability ;  for  the 
former  includes  the  latter,  as  the  greater  includes  the 
less.  Whatever  is  necessary  must  be  practicable.  By 
a  decree  which  has  ever  been  a  by- word  of  tyranny, 
the  Israelites  were  compelled  to  make  bricks  without 
straw  ;  but  it  is  not  according  to  the  ways  of  a  benev- 
olent Providence,  that  man  should  be  constrained  to 
do  what  cannot  be  done.  Besides,  the  Anti-Slavery 
Enterprise  is  right ;  and  the  right  is  always  prac- 
ticable. 

I  know  well  the  little  faith  which  the  world  has  in 
the  triumph  of  principles,  and  I  readily  imagine  the 
despair  with  which  our  object  is  regarded ;  but  not  on 
this  account  am  I  disheartened.  That  exuberant  wri- 
ter, Sir  Thomas  Browne,  breaks  into  an  ecstatic  wish 
for  some  new  difficulty  in  Christian  belief,  that  his 
faith  might  have  a  new  victory,  and  an  eminent  enthu- 
siast went  so  far  as  to  say,  that  he  believed  because 
it  was  impossible  —  credo  quia  impossibile.  But  no 
such  exalted  faith  is  now  required.  Here  is  no  im- 
possibility, nor  is  there  any  difficulty  which  will  not 
yield  to  a  faithful,  well-directed  endeavor.  If  to  any 
timid  soul  the  Enterprise  seems  impossible  because  it 
is  too  beautiful,  then  I  say  at  once  that  it  is  too  beau- 
tiful not  to  be  possible. 

But  descending  from  these  summits,  let  me  show 
plainly  the  object  which  it  seeks  to  accomplish,  and 
herein  you  shall  see  and  confess  its  complete  practica- 
bility. While  discountenancing  all  prejudice  of  color 
and  every  establishment  of  caste,  the  Anti-Slavery  En- 
terprise —  at  least  so  far  as  I  may  speak  for  it  —  does 
42 


494  ANII-SIAVEBY    ENTEBPBISE  ;    ITS 

not  undertake  to  change  human  nature,  or  to  force  any 
individual  into  relations  of  life  for  which  he  is  not 
morally,  intellectually  and  socially  adapted  ;  nor  does 
it  necessarily  assume  that  a  race,  degraded  for  long 
generations  under  the  iron  heel  of  bondage,  can  be 
lifted  at  once  into  all  the  political  privileges  of  an 
American  citizen.  But,  sir,  it  does  confidently  assume, 
against  all  question,  contradiction,  or  assault  whatever, 
that  every  man  is  entitled  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pur- 
suit of  happiness ;  and,  with  equal  confidence,  it  asserts 
that  every  individual,  who  wears  the  humanform,  whether 
black  or  white,  should  at  once  be  recognized  as  man.  I 
know  not  when  this  is  done,  what  other  trials  may  be 
in  wait  for  the  unhappy  African  ;  but  this  I  do  know, 
that  the  Anti-Slavery  Enterprise  will  then  have  tri- 
umphed, and  the  institution  of  Slavery,  as  dejined  by 
existing  law,  will  no  longer  shock  mankind. 

In  this  work  the  first  essential,  practical  requisite  is, 
that  the  question  shall  be  openly  and  frankly  con- 
fronted. Do  not  put  it  aside.  Do  not  blink  it  out  of 
sight.  Do  not  dodge  it.  Approach  it.  Study  it. 
Ponder  it.  -  Deal  with  it.  Let  it  rest  in  the  illumina- 
tion of  speech,  conversation  and  the  press.  Let  it  fill 
the  thoughts  of  the  statesman  and  the  prayers  of  the 
pulpit.  When  Slavery  is  thus  regarded,  its  true  char- 
acter will  be  recognized  as  a  hateful  assemblage  of  un- 
questionable wrongs  under  the  sanction  of  existing  law, 
and  good  men  will  be  moved  at  once  to  apply  the 
remedy.  Already  even  its  zealots  admit  that  its 
"  abuses  "  should  be  removed.  This  is  their  word 
and  not  mine.  Alas !  alas  !  sir,  it  is  these  very 
"  abuses  "  which  constitute  its  component  parts,  with- 
out which  it  would  not  exist,  even  as  the  scourges  in 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY    AND    DIGNITY.       495 

a  bundle  with,  the  axe  constituted  the  dread  fasces  of 
the  Roman  lictor.  Take  away  these,  and  the  whole 
embodied  outrage  will  disappear.  Surely  that  central 
assumption  —  more  deadly  than  the  axe  itself  —  by 
which  man  is  changed  into  a  chattel,  maybe  abandoned ; 
and  is  not  this  practicable  ?  The  associate  scourges  by 
which  that  transcendent  "  abuse  "  is  surrounded,  may, 
one  by  one,  be  subtracted.  The  "  abuse  "  which  sub- 
stitutes concubinage  for  marriage  —  the  "  abuse  " 
jivhich  annuls  the  parental  relation  —  the  "  abuse  " 
which  closes  the  portals  of  knowledge  —  the  "  abuse  " 
which  tyrannically  usurps  all  the  labor  of  another  — 
now  upheld  by  positive  law,  may  by  positive  law  be 
abolished.  To  say  that  this  is  not  practicable,  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  would  be  a  scandal  upon  mankind, 
and  just  in  proportion  as  these  "  abuses  "  cease  to  have 
the  sanction  of  law,  will  the  institution  of  Slavery  cease 
to  exist.  The  African,  whatever  may  then  be  his  con- 
dition, will  no  longer  be  the  slave  over  whose  wrongs 
and  sorrows  the  world  throbs  at  times  fiercely  indignant, 
and  at  times  painfully  sad,  while  with  outstretched 
arms,  he  sends  forth  the  piteous  cry,  "  Am  I  not  a  man 
and  a  brother  ?  " 

In  pressing  forward  to  this  result,  the  inquiry  is 
often  presented,  to  what  extent,  if  any,  shall  compen- 
sation be  allowed  to  the  slave-masters  ?  Clearly,  if 
the  point  be  determined  by  absolute  justice,  not  the 
masters  but  the  slaves  will  be  entitled  to  compensation  ; 
for  it  is  the  slaves,  who,  throughout  weary  generations, 
have  been  deprived  of  their  toil,  and  all  its  fruits  which 
went  to  enrich  their  masters.  Besides,  it  seems  hardly 
reasonable  to  pay  for  the  relinquishment  of  those  dis- 
gusting "  abuses,"  which,  in  their  aggregation,  consti- 


496  ANTI-SLAVERY    ENTERPRISE  ;    ITS 

tute  the  bundle  of  Slavery.  Pray,  sir,  by  what  tariff, 
price  current,  or  principle  of  equation,  shall  their 
several  values  be  estimated  ?  What  sum  shall  be 
counted  out  as  the  proper  price  for  the  abandonment 
of  that  pretension  —  more  indecent  than  the  jus  prinuE 
noctis  of  the  feudal  age  —  which  leaves  woman, 
whether  in  the  arms  of  master  or  slave,  always  a  con- 
cubine ?  What  bribe  shall  be  proifered  for  the  restora- 
tion of  God-given  paternal  rights  ?  What  money 
shall  be  paid  for  taking  off  the  padlock  by  which  souls 
arc  fastened  down  in  darkness  ?  How  much  for  a 
quit-claim  to  labor  now  meanly  exacted  by  the  strong 
from  the  weak  ?  And  what  compensation  shall  be 
awarded  for  the  egregious  assumption,  condemned  by 
reason  and"  abhorred  by  piety,  which  changes  a  man 
into  a  thing  ?  I  put  these  questions  without  undertaking 
to  pass  upon  them.  Shrinking  instinctively  from  any 
recognition  of  rights  founded  on  wrongs,  I  find  myself 
shrinking  also  from  any  austere  verdict,  which  shall 
deny  the  means  necessary  to  the  great  consummation 
we  seek.  Our  fathers,  under  Washington,  did  not 
hesitate  by  Act  of  Congress,  to  appropriate  largely  for 
the  ransom  of  white  fellow-citizens  enslaved  by  Alge- 
rine  corsairs  ;  and,  following  this  example,  I  am  dis- 
posed to  consider  the  question  of  compensation  as  one 
of  expediency,  to  be  determined  by  the  exigency  of 
the  hour  and  the  constitutional  powers  of  the  Govern- 
ment ;  though  such  is  my  desire  to  see  the  foul  fiend 
Of  Slavery  in  flight,  that  I  could  not  hesitate  to  build 
even  a  Bridge  of  Gold,  if  necessary,  to  promote  his 
escape. 

The  Practicability  of  the   Anti-Slavery  Enterprise 
has  been  constantly  questioned,  often  so  superficially, 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY   AND    DIGNITY.       497 

as  to  be  answered  at  once.  I  shall  not  take  time  to 
consider  the  allegation,  founded  on  considerations  of 
economy,  which  audaciously  assumes  that  Slave  Labor 
is  more  advantageous  than  Free  Labor  —  that  Slavery 
is  more  profitable  than  Freedom  ;  for  this  is  all  ex- 
ploded by  the  official  tables  of  the  census  ;  nor  that 
other  futile  argument,  that  the  slaves  are  not  prepared 
for  Freedom,  and,  therefore,  should  not  be  precipitated 
into  this  condition,  —  for  that  is  no  better  than  the 
ancient  Greek  folly,  where  the  anxious  mother  would 
not  allow  her  son  to  go  into  the  water  until  he  had 
first  learned  to  swim.  But,  as  against  the  Necessity 
of  the  Anti-Slavery  Enterprise,  there  were  two  chief 
objections,  so,  also,  against  its  Practicability  there  are 
two  ;  the  first,  founded  on  its  alleged  danger  to  the 
master,  and  the  second,  on  its  alleged  damage  to  the 
slave  himself. 

1 .  The  first  objection,  founded  on  the  alleged  danger 
to  the  master,  most  generally  takes  the  extravagant 
form,  that  the  slave,  if  released  from  his  present  con- 
dition, would  cut  his  master's  throat.  Here  is  a 
blatant  paradox,  which  can  pass  for  reason  only  among 
those  who  have  lost  their  reason.  With  an  absurdity 
which  finds  no  parallel  except  in  the  defences  of  Slavery, 
it  assumes  that  the  African,  when  treated  justly,  will 
show  a  vindictiveness  which  he  does  not  exhibit  when 
treated  unjustly ;  that  when  elevated  by  the  blessings 
of  Freedom,  he  will  develop  an  appetite  for  blood 
which  he  never  manifested  when  crushed  by  the  curse 
of  bondage.  At  present,  the  slave  sees  his  wife  rav- 
ished from  his  arms  —  sees  his  infant  swept  away  to 
the  auction  block  —  sees  the  heavenly  gates  of  knowl- 
edge shut  upon  him  —  sees  his  industry  and  all  its 
42* 


498  ANTI-SLAVERY    ENTEBPKISE  ;    ITS 

fruits  unjustly  snatched  by  another  —  sees  himself  and 
offspring  doomed  to  a  servitude  from  which  there  is  no 
redemption  ;  and  still  his  master  sleeps  secure.  Will 
the  master  sleep  less  secure,  when  the  slave  no  longer 
smarts  under  these  revolting  atrocities  ?  I  will  not 
trifle  with  your  intelligence,  or  with  the  quick-passing 
hour,  by  arguing  this  question. 

But  there  is  a  lofty  example,  brightening  the  his- 
toric page,  by  which  the  seal  of  experience  is  affixed 
to  the  conclusions  of  reason  ;  and  you  would  hardly 
pardon  me  if  I  failed  to  adduce  it.  By  virtue  of  a 
single  Act  of  Parliament,  the  slaves  of  the  British  West 
Indies  were  changed  at  once  to  freedmen  ;  and  this 
great  transition  was  accomplished  absolutely  without 
personal  danger  of  any  kind  to  the  master.  And  yet 
the  chance  of  danger  there  was  greater  far  than  among 
us.  In  our  broad  country,  the  slaves  are  overshadowed 
by  a  more  than  six-fold  white  population.  Only  in  two 
States  —  South  Carolina  and  Mississippi  —  do  the 
slaves  outnumber  the  whites,  and  there  but  slightly, 
while  in  the  entire  Slave  States,  the  whites  outnumber 
the  slaves  by  many  millions.  But  it  was  otherwise  in 
the  British  West  Indies,  where  the  whites  were  over- 
shadowed by  a  more  than  six-fold  population.  The 
slaves  were  800,000,  while  the  whites  numbered  only 
131,000,  distributed  in  different  proportions  on  the 
different  islands.  And  this  disproportion  has  since  in- 
creased rather  than  diminished,  always  without  danger 
to  the  whites.  In  Jamaica,  the  largest  of  these  pos- 
sessions, there  are  now  upwards  of  400,000  Africans, 
and  only  37,000  whites  ;  in  Barbadoes,  the  next  larg- 
est possession,  there  are  120,000  Africans,  and  only 
15,000  whites  ;  in  St.  Lucia,  19,500  Africans,  and  only 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY   AND    DIGNITY.      499 

600  whites  ;  in  Tobago,  14,000  Africans,  and  only  600 
whites  ;  in  Montserrat,  6000  Africans,  and  only  150 
whites  ;  and  in  the  Grenadines,  upwards  of  6000  Afri- 
cans, and  less  than  50  whites.  And  yet  in  all  these 
places,  the  authorities  attest  the  good  behavior  of  the 
Africans.  Sir  Lionel  Smith,  the  Governor  of  Jamaica, 
in  his  speech  to  the  Assembly,  declared  that  their  con- 
duct "  proves  how  well  they  deserved  the  boon  of 
Freedom."  Another  Governor  of  another  island  dwells 
on  the  "  peculiarly  rare  instances  of  the  commission  of 
grave  or  sanguinary  crimes  among  the  emancipated 
portion  of  these  islands  ;  "  and  the  Queen  of  England,, 
in  a  speech  from  the  throne,  has  announced  that  the 
complete  and  final  emancipation  of  the  Africans  had 
"  taken  place  without  any  disturbance  of  public  order 
and  tranquillity."  In  this  example  I  hail  new  con- 
firmation of  the  rule  that  the  highest  safety  is  in  doing 
right ;  and  thus  do  I  dismiss  the  objection  founded  on 
the  alleged  danger  to  the  master. 

2.  And  I  am  now  brought  to  the  second  objection, 
founded  on  the  alleged  damage  to  the  slave.  It  is 
common  among  the  partisans  of  Slavery,  to  assert  that 
our  Enterprise  has  actually  retarded  the  very  cause  it 
seeks  to  promote ;  and  this  paradoxical  accusation, 
which  might  naturally  show  itself  among  the  rank 
weeds  of  the  South,  is  cherished  here  on  our  Northern 
soil,  by  those  who  anxiously  look  for  any  fig-leaf  with 
which  to  cover  their  indifference  or  tergiversation. 

This  peculiar  form  of  complaint  is  an  old  device, 
which  has  been  instinctively  employed  on  other  occa- 
sions until  it  has  ceased  to  be  even  plausible.  Thus, 
throughout  all  times,  has  every  good  cause  been  en- 
countered. The  Saviour  was  nailed  to  the  cross  with 


500  ANTI-SLAVEBY    EJTTERPBISE  ;    ITS 

a  crown  of  thorns  on  his  head,  as  a  disturber  of  that 
peace  on  earth  which  he  came  to  declare.  The  disci- 
ples, while  preaching  the  Gospel  of  forgiveness  and 
good  will,  were  stoned  as  preachers  of  sedition  and 
discord.  The  reformers,  who  sought  to  establish  a 
higher  piety  and  faith,  were  burnt  at  the  stake  as 
blasphemers  and  infidels.  Patriots,  in  all  ages,  who 
have  striven  for  their  country's  good,  have  been  doom- 
ed to  the  scaffold  or  to  exile,  even  as  their  country's 
enemies.  And  those  brave  Englishmen,  who,  at 
home,  under  the  lead  of  Edmund  Burke,  even  against 
their  own  country,  espoused  the  cause  of  our  fathers, 
shared  the  same  illogical  impeachment,  which  was 
touched  to  the  quick  by  that  orator  statesman,  when, 
after  exposing  its  essential  vice,  "  in  attributing  the 
ill- effect  of  ill-judged  conduct  to  the  arguments  used 
to  dissuade  us  from  it,"  he  denounced  it  as  "  very 
absurd,  but  very  common  in  modern  practice,  and  very 
wicked."  Ay,  sir,  it  is  common  in  modern  practice. 
In  England,  it  has  vainly  renewed  itself  with  special 
frequency  against  the  Bible  Societies ;  against  the 
friends  of  education  ;  against  the  patrons  of  vaccina- 
tion ;  against  the  partisans  of  peace,  all  of  whom  have 
been  openly  arraigned  as  provoking  and  increasing  the 
very  evils,  whether  of  infidelity,  idleness,  disease,  or 
war,  which  they  benignly  sought  to  check.  And  to 
bring  an  instance  which  is  precisely  applicable  to  our 
own,  Wilberforce,  when  conducting  the  Anti-Slavery 
Enterprise  of  England,  first  against  the  slave-trade 
and  then  against  Slavery  itself,  was  told  that  those 
efforts,  by  \vhich  his  name  is  now  consecrated  forever- 
more,  tended  to  increase  the  hardships  of  the  slave, 
even  to  the  extent  of  rivetting  anew  his  chains.  Such 


NECESSITY,  PBACTICABILITY   AND    DIGNITY.       501 

are  the  precedents  for  the  imputation  to  which  our 
Enterprise  is  exposed ;  and  such,  also,  are  the  prece- 
dents by  which  I  exhibit  the  fallacy  of  the  imputation. 

Sir,  I  do  not  doubt  that  the  Enterprise  has  produced 
heat  and  irritation,  amounting  often  to  inflammation, 
among  slave-masters,  which,  to  superficial  minds,  may 
seem  inconsistent  with  success  ;  but  which  the  careful 
observer  will  recognize  at  once  as  the  natural  and  not 
unhealthy  effort  of  a  diseased  body,  to  purge  itself  of 
existing  impurities ;  and  just  in  proportion  to  the 
malignity  of  the  concealed  poison,  will  be  the  extent 
of  inflammation.  A  distemper  like  Slavery  cannot  be 
ejected  like  a  splinter.  It  is,  perhaps,  too  much  to  ex- 
pect that  men  thus  tortured  should  reason  calmly  — 
that  patients  thus  suffering  should  comprehend  the 
true  nature  of  their  case  and  kindly  acknowledge  the 
beneficent  work ;  but  not  on  this  account  can  it  be 
suspended. 

In  the  face  of  this  complaint,  I  assert  that  the  Anti- 
Slavery  Enterprise  has  already  accomplished  incalcula- 
ble good.  Even  now  it  touches  the  national  heart  as 
it  never  before  was  touched,  sweeping  its  strings  with 
a  might  to  draw  forth  emotions  such  as  no  political 
struggle  has  ever  evoked.  It  moves  the  young,  the 
middle-aged  and  the  old.  It  enters  the  family  circle, 
and  mingles  with  the  flame  of  the  household  hearth. 
It  reaches  the  souls  of  mothers,  wives,  sisters  and 
daughters,  filling  all  with  a  new  aspiration  for  justice 
on  earth,  and  awakening  not  merely  a  sentiment 
against  Shivery,  such  as  prevailed  with  our  fathers, 
but  a  deep,  undying  conviction  of  its  wrong,  and  a 
determination  to  leave  no  effort  unattempted  for  its 
removal.  With  the  sympathies  of  all  Christendom  as 


502  AXII-SLAYEKY    ENTEBPRISE  J    ITS 

allies,  it  has  already  encompassed  the  slave-masters  by 
a  moral  blockade,  invisible  to  the  eye,  but  more  potent 
than  navies,  from  which  there  can  be  no  escape  except 
in  final  capitulation.  Thus  it  has  created  the  irresisti- 
ble influence  which  itself  constitutes  the  beginning  of 
success.  Already  there  are  signs  of  change.  In  com- 
mon speech,  as  well  as  in  writing,  among  slave-masters 
the  bondman  is  no  longer  called  a  slave,  but  a  servant, 
—  thus,  by  a  soft  substitution,  concealing  and  con- 
demning the  true  relation.  Even  newspapers  in  the 
land  of  bondage  blush  with  indignation  at  the  hunt  of 
men  by  blood-hounds,  thus  protesting  against  an  un- 
questionable incident  of  Slavery.  Other  signs  are 
found  in  the  added  comfort  of  the  slave ;  in  the  en- 
larged attention  to  his  wants  ;  in  the  experiments  now 
beginning,  by  which  the  slave  is  enabled  to  share  in 
the  profits  of  his  labor,  and  thus  finally  secure  his 
freedom ;  and,  above  all,  in  the  consciousness  among 
slave-masters  themselves,  that  they  dwell  now  as  never 
before  under  the  keen  observation  of  an  ever-wakeful 
Public  Opinion,  quickened  by  an  ever-wakeful  Public 
Press.  Nor  is  this  all.  Only  lately  propositions  have 
been  introduced  into  the  Legislatures  of  different  States, 
and  countenanced  by  Governors,  to  mitigate  the  exist- 
ing law  of  Slavery  ;  and,  almost  while  speaking,  I  have 
received  the  drafts  of  two  different  memorials,  —  one 
addressed  to  the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  and  the  other 
to  that  of  North  Carolina,  —  asking  for  the  slave  three 
things,  which  it  will  be  monstrous  to  refuse,  but  which, 
if  conceded,  will  take  from  Slavery  its  existing  charac- 
ter ;  —  I  mean,  first,  the  protection  of  the  marriage 
relation ;  secondly,  the  protection  of  the  parental  rela- 
tion ;  and,  thirdly,  the  privilege  of  knowledge.  Grant 


NECESSITY,  PRACTICABILITY   AND    DIGNITY.       503 

these,  and  the  girdled  Upas  tree  soon  must  die.  Sir, 
amidst  these  tokens  of  present  success,  and  the  augu- 
ries of  the  future,  I  am  not  disturbed  by  any  complaints 
of  seeming  damage.  "  Though  it  consume  our  own 
dwelling,  who  does  not  venerate  fire,  without  which 
human  life  can  hardly  exist  on  earth,"  says  the  Hindoo 
proverb  ;  and  the  time  is  even  now  at  hand  when  the 
Anti-Slavery  Enterprise,  which  is  the  very  fire  of 
Freedom,  with  all  its  incidental  excesses  or  excite- 
ments, will  be  hailed  with  a  similar  regard. 

III.  And  now,  in  the  third  place,  the  Anti-Slavery 
Enterprise,  which  I  have  shown  to  be  at  once  necessary 
and  practicable,  is  commended  by  its  inherent  DIG- 
NITY. Here  the  reasons  are  obvious  and  unanswer- 
able. 

Its  object  is  benevolent ;  nor  is  there,  in  the  dreary 
annals  of  the  Past,  a  single  Enterprise  which  stands 
forth  more  clearly  and  indisputably  entitled  to  this 
character.  With  unsurpassed  and  touching  magnani- 
mity, it  seeks  to  benefit  the  lowly  whom  your  eyes 
have  not  seen,  and  who  are  ignorant  even  of  your 
labors,  while  it  demands  and  receives  a  self-sacrifice 
calculated  to  ennoble  an  enterprise  of  even  question- 
able merit.  Its  true  rank  is  among  works  properly 
called  philanthropic  —  the  title  of  highest  honor  on 
earth.  "  I  take  goodness  in  this  sense,"  says  Lord 
Bacon  in  his  Essays,  "  the  affecting  of  the  weal  of  men, 
which  is  what  the  Grecians  call  Philanthropeia  —  of 
all  virtues  and  dignities  of  the  mind  the  greatest,  being 
the  character  of  the  Deity ;  and  without  it,  man  is  a 
busy,  mischievous,  wretched  thing,  no  better  than  a 
kind  of  vermin."  Lord  Bacon  was  right,  and,  per- 


504  ANTI-SIAVEKY    EXTEEPEISE  ;    ITS 

haps,  unconsciously  followed  a  higher  authority ;  for, 
when  Moses  asked  the  Lord  to  show  unto  him  His 
glory,  the  Lord  said,  "  I  will  make  all  my  goodness  to 
pass  before  thee."  Ah!  sir,  Peace  has  trophies  fairer 
and  more  perennial  than  any  snatched  from  fields  of 
blood,  but  among  all  these,  the  fairest  and  most  peren- 
nial are  the  trophies  of  beneficence.  Scholarship, 
literature,  jurisprudence,  art,  may  wear  their  well- 
deserved  honors ;  but  an  Enterprise  of  goodness  de- 
serves, and  will  yet  receive,  a  higher  palm  than  these. 

In  other  aspects  its  dignity  is  apparent.  It  concerns 
the  cause  of  Human  Freedom,  which,  from  the  earliest 
days,  has  been  the  darling  of  history.  By  all  the 
memories  of  the  Past ;  by  the  stories  of  childhood  and 
the  studies  of  youth;  by  every  example  of  magnani- 
mous virtue ;  by  every  aspiration  for  the  good  and 
true ;  by  the  fame  of  the  martyrs  swelling  through  all 
time  ;  by  the  renown  of  patriots  whose  lives  are  land- 
marks of  progress ;  by  the  praise  lavished  upon  our 
fathers,  you  are  summoned  to  this  work.  Unless  Free- 
dom be  an  illusion,  and  Benevolence  an  error,  you 
cannot  resist  the  appeal.  But  our  cause  is  nobler  even 
than  that  of  our  fathers,  inasmuch  as  it  is  more  ex- 
alted to  struggle  for  the  freedom  of  others  than  for 
our  own. 

Its  practical  importance  at  this  moment  gives  to  it 
an  additional  eminence.  Whether  measured  by  the 
number  of  beings  it  seeks  to  benefit ;  by  the  magnitude 
of  the  wrongs  it  hopes  to  relieve ;  by  the  difficulties 
with  which  it  is  beset ;  by  the  political  relations  which 
it  affects ;  or  by  the  ability  and  character  it  has  enlist- 
ed, the  cause  of  the  slave  now  assumes  proportions  of 
grandeur  which  dwarf  all  other  interests  in  our  broad 


KECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY    AND    DIGNITY.     505 

country.  In  its  presence  the  machinations  of  politi- 
cians, the  aspirations  of  office-seekers  and  the  subter- 
fuges of  party,  all  sink  below  even  their  ordinary 
insignificance.  For  myself,  sir,  I  can  see  little  else 
at  this  time  among  us  which  can  tempt  out  on  to  the 
exposed  steeps  of  public  life  an  honest  man,  who 
wishes,  by  something  that  he  does,  to  leave  the  world 
better  than  he  found  it.  I  can  see  little  else  which 
can  afford  any  of  those  satisfactions  which  an  honest 
man  should  covet.  Nor  is  there  any  cause  which  so 
surely  promises  final  success  ; 

"  Oh  !  a  fair  cause  stands  firm  and  will  abide  ; 
Legions  of  angels  fight  upon  its  side !  "  * 

It  is  written  that  in  the  last  days  there  shall  be 
scoffers,  and  even  this  Enterprise,  thus  philanthropic, 
has  not  escaped  their  aspersions.  And  as  the  objec- 
tions to  its  Necessity  were  two-fold,  and  the  objections 
to  its  Practicability  two-fold,  so,  also,  are  the  asper- 
sions two-fold  ;  —  first  in  the  form  of  hard  words,  and 
secondly,  by  personal  disparagement  of  those  who  are 
engaged  in  it. 

1.  The  hard  words  are  manifold  as  the  passions  and 
prejudices  of  men  ;  but  they  generally  end  in  the  im- 
putation of  "fanaticism."  In  such  a  cause,  I  am  wil- 
ling to  be  called  "fanatic,"  or  what  you  will ;  I  care 
not  for  aspersions,  nor  shall  I  shrink  before  hard 
words,  either  here  or  elsewhere.  I  have  learned  from 
that  great  Englishman,  Oliver  Cromwell,  that  no  man 
can  be  trusted  "  who  is  afraid  of  a  paper  pellet ;  "  and 
I  am  too  familiar  with  history  not  to  know,  that  every 

*  Antonio  and  Mellida,  a  play  by  John  Marston. 
43 


506  ANTI-SLAVERY    ENTERPRISE  ;    ITS 

movement  for  reform,  in  Church  or  State,  every  en- 
deavor for  Human  Liberty  or  Human  Rights,  has  been 
thus  assailed.  I  do  not  forget  with  what  facility  and 
frequency  hard  words  have  been  employed  —  how  that 
grandest  character  of  many  generations,  the  precursor 
of  our  own  Washington,  without  whose  example  our 
Republic  might  have  failed  —  the  great  William, 
Prince  of  Orange,  the  founder  of  the  Dutch  Republic, 
the  United  States  of  Holland  —  I  do  not  forget  how 
he  was  publicly  branded  as  "  a  perjurer  and  a  pest  of 
society ;  "  and,  not  to  dwell  on  general  instances,  how 
the  enterprise  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  was 
characterized  on  the  floor  of  Parliament  by  one  emi- 
nent speaker  as  "  mischievous,"  and  by  another  as 
"  visionary  and  delusive  ;  "  and  how  the  exalted  char- 
acters which  it  had  enlisted  were  arraigned  by  still 
another  eminent  speaker  —  none  other  than  that  Tarle- 
ton,  so  conspicuous  as  the  commander  of  the  British 
horse  in  the  southern  campaigns  of  our  Revolution, 
but  more  conspicuous  in  politics  at  home,  —  "as  a 
junto  of  sectaries,  sophists,  enthusiasts  and  fanat- 
ics ; "  and  also  were  again  arraigned  by  no  less  a 
person  than  a  prince  of  the  blood,  the  Duke  of  Clar- 
ence, afterwards  William  IV.  of  England,  as  "  either 
fanatics  or  hypocrites,"  in  one  of  which  classes  he 
openly  placed  William  Wilberforce.  But  impartial 
history,  with  immortal  pen,  has  redressed  these  im- 
passioned judgments  ;  and  the  same  impartial  history 
will  yet  rejudge  the  impassioned  judgments  of  this 
hour. 

2.  Hard  words  have  been  followed  by  personal  dis- 
paragement, and  the  sneer  is  often  launched  that  our 
Enterprise  lacks  the  authority  of  names  eminent  in 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY    AND    DIGNITY.      507 

Church  and  State.  If  this  be  so,  the  more  is  the  pity 
on  their  account ;  for  our  cause  is  needed  to  them 
more  than  they  are  needed  to  our  cause.  But  alas  ! 
it  is  only  according  to  the  example  of  history  that  it 
should  be  so.  It  is  not  the  eminent  in  Church  and 
State,  the  rich  and  powerful,  the  favorites  of  fortune 
and  of  place,  who  most  promptly  welcome  Truth, 
when  she  heralds  change  in  the  existing  order  of 
things.  It  is  others  in  poorer  condition  who  throw 
open  their  hospitable  hearts  to  the  unattended  stran- 
ger. Nay,  more  ;  it  is  not  the  dwellers  amidst  the  glare 
of  the  world,  but  the  humble  and  lowly,  who  most 
clearly  discern  new  duties,  —  as  the  watchers,  placed 
in  the  depths  of  a  well,  may  observe  the  stars  which 
are  obscured  to  those  who  live  in  the  effulgence  of 
noon.  Placed  below  the  egotism  and  prejudice  of 
self-interest,  or  of  a  class  —  below  the  cares  and  temp- 
tations of  wealth  or  power  —  in  the  obscurity  of  com- 
mon life,  they  discern  the  new  signal,  and  surrender 
themselves  unreservedly  to  its  guidance.  The  Sa- 
viour knew  this.  He  did  not  call  upon  the  Priest,  or 
Levite,  or  Pharisee,  to  follow  him ;  but  upon  the 
humble  fisherman  by  the  sea  of  Galilee. 

And  now,  sir,  I  present  to  you  the  Anti-Slavery 
Enterprise  vindicated  in  Necessity,  Practicability  and 
Dignity,  against  all  objections.  If  there  be  any  objec- 
tion which  I  have  not  answered,  it  is  because  I  am 
not  aware  of  its  existence.  It  remains  that  I  should 
give  a  practical  conclusion  to  this  whole  matter,  by 
showing,  though  in  glimpses  only,  your  SPECIAL 
DUTIES  AS  FREEMEN  OF  THE  NORTH.  And,  thank 
God !  at  last  there  is  a  North. 


508  ANII-SLAVEKY    ENTERPBISE  ;    ITS 

Mr.  President,  it  is  not  uncommon  to  hear  persona 
among  us  at  the  North,  confess  the  wrong  of  Slavery, 
and  then,  folding  their  hands  in  absolute  listlessness, 
ejaculate,  "What  can  we  do  about  it?"  Such  men 
we  encounter  daily.  You  all  know  them.  Among 
them  are  men  in  every  department  of  human  activity 
—  who  perpetually  buy,  build  and  plan  —  who  shrink 
from  no  labor  —  who  are  daunted  by  no  peril  of  com- 
mercial adventure,  by  no  hardihood  of  industrial  enter- 
prise—  who,  reaching  in  their  undertakings-  across 
oceans  and  continents,  would  undertake  "  to  put  a 
girdle  about  the  earth  in  forty  seconds ;  "  and  yet, 
disheartened,  they  can  join  in  no  effort  against 
Slavery.  Others  there  are,  especially  among  the 
youthful  and  enthusiastic,  who  vainly  sigh  because 
they  were  not  born  in  the  age  of  chivalry,  or  at  least 
in  the  days  of  the  revolution,  not  thinking  that  in  this 
Enterprise,  there  is  an  opportunity  of  lofty  endeavor 
such  as  no  Paladin  of  chivalry,  or  chief  of  the  revolu- 
tion enjoyed.  Others  there  are,  who  freely  bestow 
their  means  and  time  upon  the  distant  inaccessible 
heathen  of  another  hemisphere,  in  the  islands  of  the 
sea;  and  yet  they  can  do  nothing  to  mitigate  our 
grander  heathenism  here  at  home.  While  confessing 
that  it  ought  to  disappear  from  the  earth,  they  forego, 
renounce  and  abandon  all  exertion  against  it.  Others 
there  are  still,  (such  is  human  inconsistency  !)  who 
plant  the  tree  in  whose  full-grown  shade  they  can 
never  expect  to  sit  —  who  hopefully  drop  the  acorn 
in  the  earth,  trusting  that  the  oak  which  it  sends 
upward  to  the  skies  will  shelter  their  children  beneath 
its  shade  ;  but  they  will  do  nothing  to  plant  or  nur- 
ture the  great  tree  of  Liberty,  that  it  may  cover  with 
its  arms  unborn  generations  of  men. 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY    AND    DIGNITY.       509 

Others  still  there  are,  particularly  in  the  large  cities, 
who  content  themselves  by  occasional  contributions  to 
the  redemption  of  a  slave.  To  this  object  they  give 
out  of  ample  riches,  and  thus  seek  to  silence  the  mo- 
nitions of  conscience.  Now,  I  would  not  discounte- 
nance any  form  of  activity  by  which  Human  Freedom, 
even  in  a  single  case,  may  be  secured.  But  I  desire 
to  say,  that  such  an  act  —  too  often  accompanied  by  a 
pharisaical  pretension,  in  strange  contrast  with  the 
petty  performance  —  cannot  be  considered  an  essential 
aid  to  the  Anti- Slavery  Enterprise.  Not  in  this  Avay 
can  any  impression  be  made  on  an  evil  so  vast  as 
Slavery  —  as  you  will  clearly  see  by  an  illustration 
which  I  shall  give.  The  god  Thor,  of  Scandinavian 
mythology  —  whose  strength  surpassed  that  of  Her- 
cules —  was  once  challenged  to  drain  a  simple  cup 
dry.  He  applied  it  to  his  lips,  and  with  superhuman 
capacity  drank,  but  the  water  did  not  recede  even 
from  the  rim,  and  at  last  the  god  abandoned  the  effort. 
The  failure  of  even  his  extraordinary  strength  was 
explained,  when  he  learned  that  the  simple  cup  had 
communicated,  by  an  invisible  connection,  with  the 
whole  vast  ocean  behind,  out  of  which  it  was  per- 
petually supplied,  and  which  remained  absolutely 
unaffected  by  the  effort.  And  just  so  will  these 
occasions  of  charity,  though  encountered  by  the  larg- 
est private  means,  be  constantly  renewed,  for  they 
communicate  with  the  whole  Black  Sea  of  Slavery 
behind,  out  of  which  they  are  perpetually  supplied, 
and  which  remains  absolutely  unaffected  by  the  effort. 
Sir,  private  means  may  cope  with  individual  necessi- 
ties, but  they  are  powerless  to  redress  the  evils  of  a 
wicked  institution.  Charity  is  limited  and  local ;  the 
43* 


510  ANTI-SLATEKY    ENTEBPBISE  J    ITS 

evils  of  Slavery  are  infinite  and  everywhere.  Besides, 
a  wrong  organized  and  upheld  by  law,  can  be  removed 
only  through  a  change  of  the  law.  Not,  then,  by  an 
occasional  contribution  to  ransom  a  slave  can  your 
duty  be  done  in  this  great  cause  ;  but  only  by  earn- 
est, constant,  valiant  efforts  against  the  institution  — 
against  the  law  —  which  makes  slaves. 

I  am  not  insensible  to  the  difficulties  of  this  work. 
Full  well  I  know  the  power  of  Slavery.  Full  well  I 
know  all  its  various  intrenchments  in  the  church,  the 
politics  and  the  prejudices  of  the  country.  Full  well  I 
know  the  sensitive  interests  of  property,  amounting  to 
many  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  which  are  said  to  be 
at  stake.  But  these  things  can  furnish  no  motive  or 
apology  for  indifference,  or  for  any  folding  of  the 
hands.  Surely  the  wrong  is  not  less  wrong  because 
it  is  gigantic ;  the  evil  is  not  less  evil  because  it  is 
immeasurable  ;  nor  can  the  duty  of  perpetual  warfare, 
with  wrong,  or  evil,  be  in  this  instance  suspended. 
Nay,  because  Slavery  is  powerful  —  because  the  En- 
terprise is  difficult  —  therefore  is  the  duty  of  all  more 
exigent.  The  well-tempered  soul  does  not  yield  to 
difficulties,  but  presses  onward  forever  with  increased 
resolution. 

And  here  the  question  occurs,  which  is  so  often 
pressed  in  argument,  or  in  taunt,  What  have  we  at  the 
North  to  do  with  Slavery  ?  In  answer,  I  might  con- 
tent myself  by  saying  that  as  members  of  the  human 
family,  bound  together  by  the  cords  of  a  common 
manhood,  there  is  no  human  wrong  to  which  we  can 
justly  be  insensible,  nor  is  there  any  human  sorrow 
which  we  should  not  seek  to  relieve  ;  but  I  prefer  to 
say,  on  this  occasion,  that,  as  citizens  of  the  United 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY    AND   DIGNITY.       511 

States,  anxious  for  the  good  name,  the  repose  and  the 
prosperity  of  the  Republic  —  that  it  may  be  a  blessing 
and  not  a  curse  to  mankind  —  there  is  nothing  among 
all  its  diversified  interests,  under  the  National  Consti- 
tution, with  which,  at  this  moment,  we  have  so  much 
to  do  ;  nor  is  there  anything  with  regard  to  which  our 
duties  are  so  irresistibly  clear.  I  do  not  dwell  on  the 
scandal  of  Slavery  in  the  national  capital  —  of  Slavery 
in  the  national  territories  —  of  the  coast- wise  slave- 
trade  on  the  high  seas  beneath  the  national  flag,  — 
all  of  which  are  outside  of  State  limits,  and  within  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Congress,  where  you  and  I, 
sir,  and  every  freeman  of  the  North,  are  compelled  to 
share  the  responsibility  and  help  to  bind  the  chain. 
To  dislodge  Slavery  from  these  usurped  footholds 
under  the  Constitution,  and  thus  at  once  to  relieve 
ourselves  from  a  grievous  responsibility,  and  to  begin 
the  great  work  of  emancipation,  were  an  object  worthy 
of  an  exalted  ambition.  But  before  even  this  can  be 
commenced,  there  is  a  great  work,  more  than  any 
other  important  and  urgent,  which  must  be  consum- 
mated in  the  domain  of  national  politics,  and  also 
here  at  home  in  the  Free  States.  The  National  Gov- 
ernment itself  must  be  emancipated,  so  that  it  shall 
no  longer  wear  the  yoke  of  servitude  ;  and  Slavery  in 
all  its  pretensions  must  be  dislodged  from  its  usurped 
foothold,  in  the  Free  States  themselves,  thus  relieving 
ourselves  from  a  grievous  responsibility  at  our  own 
door,  and  emancipating  the  North.  Emancipation, 
even  within  the  national  jurisdiction,  can  be  achieved 
only  through  the  emancipation  of  the  Free  States, 
accompanied  by  the  complete  emancipation  of  the 
National  Government.  Ay,  sir,  emancipation  at  the 


512  ANTI-SIAVEKY    ENTEKPKISE  ;    ITS 

South  can  be  reached  only  through  the  emancipation 
of  the  North.  And  this  is  my  answer  to  the  in- 
terrogatory, "What  have  we  at  the  North  to  do  with 
Slavery  ? 

But  the  answer  may  be  made  yet  more  irresistible, 
while,  with  mingled  sorrow  and  shame,  I  portray 
the  tyrannical  power  which  holds  us  in  thraldom. 
Notwithstanding  all  its  excess  of  numbers,  wealth 
and  intelligence,  the  North  is  now  the  vassal  of  an 
OLIGARCHY,  whose  single  inspiration  comes  from 
Slavery.  According  to  the  official  tables  of  our  recent 
census,  the  slave-masters  —  men,  women,  and  children 
all  told  — are  only  THREE  HUNDRED  AND 
FORTY  SEVEN  THOUSAND;  and  yet  this  small 
company  now  dominates  over  the  Republic,  deter- 
mines its  national  policy,  disposes  of  its  offices,  and 
sways  all  to  its  absolute  will.  With  a  watchfulness 
that  never  sleeps,  and  an  activity  that  never  tires  — 
with  as  many  eyes  as  Argus,  and  as  many  arms  as 
Briareus  —  the  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  asserts  its 
perpetual  and  insatiate  masterdom ;  now  seizing  a 
broad  territory  once  covered  by  a  time-honored  ordi- 
nance of  Freedom ;  now  threatening  to  wrest  Cuba 
from  Spain  by  violent  war,  or  hardly  less  violent  pur- 
chase ;  now  hankering  for  another  slice  of  Mexico, 
merely  to  find  new  scope  for  Slavery ;  now  proposing 
once  more  to  open  the  hideous,  heaven-defying  Slave- 
trade,  and  thus  to  replenish  its  shambles  with  human 
flesh  ;  and  now,  by  the  lips  of  an  eminent  Senator, 
asserting  an  audacious  claim  to  the  whole  group  of 
the  West  Indies,  whether  held  by  Holland,  Spain, 
France,  or  England,  as  "our  Southern  Islands,"  while 
it  assails  the  independence  of  Hayti,  and  stretches  its 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY   AND    DIGNITY.       513 

treacherous  ambition  even  to  the  distant  valley  of  the 
Amazon. 

In  maintaining  its  power,  the  Slave  Oligarchy  has 
applied  a  new  test  for  office,  very  different  from  that 
of  Jefferson  ;  "  Is  he  honest  ?  is  he  capable  ?  is  he 
faithful  to  the  Constitution  ?  "  These  things  are  all 
forgotten  now  in  the  controlling  question,  "  Is  he 
faithful  to  Slavery  ? "  With  arrogant  ostracism  it 
excludes  from  every  national  office  all  who  cannot 
respond  to  this  test.  So  complete  and  irrational  has 
this  tyranny  become,  that,  at  this  moment,  while  I 
now  speak,  could  Washington,  Jefferson,  or  Franklin, 
once  more  descend  from  their  spheres  above,  to  mingle 
in  our  affairs  and  bless  us  with  their  wisdom,  not  one 
of  them,  with  his  recorded,  unretracted  opinions  on 
Slavery,  could  receive  a  nomination  for  the  Presidency 
from  a  National  Convention  of  either  of  the  late  great 
political  parties ;  nor,  stranger  still,  could  either  of 
these  sainted  patriots,  whose  names  alone  open  a  per- 
petual fountain  of  gratitude  in  all  your  hearts,  be 
confirmed  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for  any 
political  function  whatever  under  the  National  Govern- 
ment —  not  even  for  the  office  of  Postmaster.  What 
I  now  say,  amidst  your  natural  astonishment,  I  have 
more  than  once  uttered  from  my  seat  in  the  Senate, 
and  no  man  there  has  made  answer,  for  no  man,  who 
has  sat  in  its  secret  sessions  and  there  learned  the  test 
which  is  practically  applied,  could  make  answer  ;  and 
I  ask  you  to  accept  this  statement  as  my  testimony 
derived  from  the  experience  which  has  been  my  lot. 
Yes,  fellow-citizens,  had  this  test  prevailed  in  the 
earlier  days,  Washington  — first  in  war,  first  in  peace, 
first  in  the  hearts  of  his  countrymen  —  could  not 


514  AUTI-SLAVEEY    ENTEEPEISE  ;    ITS 

have  been  created  Generalissimo  of  the  American 
forces  ;  Jefferson  could  not  have  taken  his  place  on 
the  Committee  to  draft  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence ;  and  Franklin  could  not  have  gone  forth  to 
France,  with  the  commission  of  the  infant  Republic, 
to  secure  the  invaluable  alliance  of  that  ancient  king- 
dom. 

And  this  giant  strength  is  used  with  a  giant  heart- 
lessness.  By  a  cruel  enactment,  which  has  no  source 
in  the  Constitution  —  which  defies  justice  —  which 
tramples  on  humanity  —  and  which  rebels  against 
God,  the  Free  States  are  made  the  hunting-ground  for 
slaves,  and  you,  and  I,  and  all  good  citizens,  are  sum- 
moned to  join  in  the  loathsome  and  abhorred  work. 
Your  hearts  and  judgments,  swift  to  feel  and  to  con- 
demn, will  not  require  me  to  expose  here  the  abomi- 
nation of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill  or  its  utter  unconsti- 
tutionality.  Elsewhere  I  have  done  this,  and  never 
been  answered.  Nor  will  you  expect  that  an  enact- 
ment, so  entirely  devoid  of  all  just  sanction,  should  be 
called  by  the  sacred  name  of  law.  History  still  repeats 
the  language  in  which  our  fathers  persevered,  when 
they  denounced  the  last  emanation  of  British  tyranny 
which  heralded  the  Revolution,  as  the  Boston  Port 
Bill,  and  I  am  content  with  this  precedent.  I  have 
said  that  if  any  man  finds  in  the  Gospel  any  support 
of  Slavery,  it  is  because  Slavery  is  already  in  himself ; 
so  do  I  now  say,  if  any  man  finds  in  the  Constitution 
of  our  country  any  support  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill, 
it  is  because  that  Bill  is  already  in  himself.  One  of 
our  ancient  masters  —  Aristotle,  I  think  —  tells  us 
that  every  man  has  a  beast  in  his  bosom ;  but  the 
Northern  citizen,  who  has  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill 


NECESSITY,    PRACTICABILITY    AND    DIGNITY.       515 

there,  has  worse  than  a  beast  —  a  devil !  And  yet  in 
this  Bill  —  more  even  than  in  the  ostracism  at  which 
you  rebel  —  does  the  Slave  Oligarchy  stand  confessed ; 
heartless,  grasping,  tyrannical ;  careless  of  humanity, 
right,  or  $ie  Constitution ;  wanting  that  foundation  of 
justice  which  is  the  essential  base  of  every  civilized 
community ;  stuck  together  only  by  confederacy  in 
spoliation  ;  and  constituting  in  itself  a  magnum  latro- 
clnium ;  while  it  degrades  the  Free  States  to  the  con- 
dition of  a  slave  plantation,  under  the  lash  of  a  vulgar, 
despised  and  revolting  overseer. 

Surely,  fellow-citizens,  without  hesitation  or  post- 
ponement you  will  insist  that  this  Oligarchy  shall  be 
overthrown ;  and  here  is  the  foremost  among  the 
special  duties  of  the  North,  now  required  for  the  honor 
of  the  republic,  for  our  own  defence,  and  in  obedience 
to  God.  Urging  this  comprehensive  duty,  I  ought  to 
have  hours  rather  than  minutes  before  me ;  but,  in  a 
few  words,  you  shall  see  its  comprehensive  importance. 
Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy  —  and  the  wickedness 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill  will  be  expelled  from  the 
statute  book.  Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy  —  and 
Slavery  will  cease  at  once  in  the  national  capital. 
Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy  —  and  liberty  will  be- 
come the  universal  law  of  all  the  national  territories. 
Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy  —  and  the  Slave-trade 
will  no  longer  skulk  along  our  coasts,  beneath  the 
national  flag.  Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy  —  and 
the  national  government  will  be  at  length  divorced 
from  Slavery.  Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy  —  and 
the  national  policy  will  be  exchanged  from  Slavery 
to  Freedom.  Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy  —  and 
the  North  will  no  longer  be  the  vassal  of  the  South. 


516  ANTI-SULVEBY    ENTERPRISE;    ITS 

Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy  —  and  the  North  will 
be  admitted  to  its  just  share  in  the  trusts  and  honors 
of  the  Republic.  Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy  — 
and  you  will  possess  the  master-key  to  unlock  the 
whole  house  of  bondage.  Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligar- 
chy —  and  the  gates  of  emancipation  will  be  open  at 
the  South. 

But,  without  waiting  for  this  consummation,  there 
is  another  special  duty  to  be  done  here  at  home,  on 
our  own  soil,  which  must  be  made  free  in  reality,  as 
in  name.  And  here  I  shall  speak  frankly,  though 
not  without  a  proper  sense  of  the  responsibility  of  my 
words.  I  know  that  I  cannot  address  you  entirely  as 
a  private  citizen ;  but  I  shall  say  nothing  here,  which 
I  have  not  said  elsewhere,  and  which  I  shall  not  be 
proud  to  vindicate  everywhere.  "  A  lie,"  it  has  been 
declared,  "  should  be  trampled  out  and  extinguished 
forever,"  and  surely  you  will  do  nothing  less  with  a 
tyrannical  and  wicked  enactment.  The  Fugitive  Slave 
Bill,  while  it  continues  unrepealed,  must  be  made  a 
dead  letter ;  not  by  violence ;  not  by  any  unconstitu- 
tional activity  or  intervention ;  not  even  by  hasty  con- 
flict between  jurisdictions ;  but  by  an  aroused  Public 
Opinion,  which,  in  its  irresistible  might,  shall  blast 
with  contempt,  indignation  and  abhorrence,  all  who 
consent  to  be  its  agents.  Thus  did  our  fathers  blast 
all  who  became  the  agents  of  the  Stamp  Act ;  and 
surely  their  motive  was  small  compared  with  ours. 
The  Slave-hunter  who  drags  his  victim  from  Africa  is 
loathed  as  a  monster;  but  I  defy  any  acuteness  of 
reason  to  indicate  the  moral  difference  between  his  act, 
and  that  of  the  Slave-hunter  who  drags  his  victim 
from  our  Northern  free  soil.  A  few  puny  persons, 


NECESSITY,  PRACTICABILITY   AND   DIGNITY.       517 

calling  themselves  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
with  the  titles  of  Representatives  and  Senators,  cannot 
turn  wrong  into  right  —  cannot  change  a  man  into  a 
thing  —  cannot  reverse  the  irreversible  law  of  God  — 
cannot  make  him  wicked  who  hunts  a  slave  on  the 
burning  sands  of  Congo  or  Guinea,  and  make  him 
virtuous  who  hunts  a  slave  in  the  colder  streets  of 
Boston  or  New  York.  Nor  can  any  acuteness  of  reason 
distinguish  between  the  bill  of  sale  from  the  kidnap- 
per, by  which  the  unhappy  African  was  originally 
transferred  in  Congo  or  Guinea,  and  the  certificate  of 
the  Commissioner,  by  which,  when  once  again  in 
Freedom,  he  was  reduced  anew  to  bondage.  The 
acts  are  kindred,  and  should  share  a  kindred  condem- 
nation. 

One  man's  virtue  becomes  a  standard  of  excellence 
for  all ;  and  there  is  now  in.  Boston,  a  simple  citizen, 
whose  example  may  be  a  lesson  to  Commissioners, 
Marshals,  Magistrates  ;  while  it  fills  all  with  the  beauty 
of  a  generous  act.  I  refer  to  Mr.  Hayes,  who  resigned 
his  place  in  the  city  police  rather  than  take  any  part  in 
the  pack  of  the  Slave-hunter.  He  is  now  the  door- 
keeper of  the  public  edifice  which  has  been  honored 
this  winter  by-  the'  triumphant  lectures  on  Slavery 
Better  be  a  door-keeper  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  than 
a  dweller  in  the  tents  of  the  ungodly.  For  myself, 
let  me  say,  that  I  can  imagine  no  office,  no  salary,  no 
consideration,  which  I  would  not  gladly  forego,  rather 
than  become  in  any  way  an  agent  for  the  enslavement 
of  my  brother-man.  Where,  for  me,  would  be  comfort- 
or  solace  after  such  a  work !  In  dreams  and  waking 
hours,  in  solitude  and  in  the  street,  in  the  study  of  the 
open  book  and  in  conversation  with  the  world,  — 
44 


518  ANTI-SLAVERY    ENTERPRISE  J    ITS 

wherever  I  turned,  there  my  victim  would  stare  me  in 
the  face ;  while  from  the  distant  rice-fields  and  sugar 
plantations  of  the  South,  his  cries  heneath  the  vindic- 
tive lash,  his  moans  at  the  thought  of  liberty  once  his, 
now,  alas !  ravished  away,  would  pursue  me,  repeating 
the  tale  of  his  fearful  doom,  and  sounding  —  forever 
sounding  —  in  my  ears,  "  Thou  art  the  man."  Mr. 
President,  may  no  such  terrible  voice  fall  on  your  soul 


or  mine 


Yes,  sir,  here  our  duty  is  plain  and  paramount. 
While  the  Slave  Oligarchy,  through  its  unrepealed 
Slave  Bill,  undertakes  to  enslave  our  free  soil,  we  can 
only  turn  for  protection  to  a  Public  Opinion,  worthy 
of  a  humane,  just  and  religious  people,  which  shall 
keep  perpetual  guard  over  the  liberties  of  all  within 
our  borders  ;  nay  more,  which,  like  the  flaming  sword 
of  the  cherubim  at  the  gates  of  Paradise,  turning  on 
every  side,  shall  prevent  any  Slave-hunter  from  ever 
setting  foot  on  our  sacred  soil.  Elsewhere  he  may 
pursue  his  human  prey ;  he  may  employ  his  congenial 
blood-hounds,  and  exult  in  his  successful  game.  But 
into  these  domains  of  Freedom  he  must  not  come. 
And  this  Public  Opinon,  with  Freedom  as  its  watch- 
word, must  proclaim  not  only  the  overthrow  of  the 
Slave  Bill,  but  also  the  overthrow  of  the  Slave  Oli- 
garchy behind,  —  the  two  pressing  duties  of  the  North, 
essential  to  our  own  emancipation ;  and  believe  me, 
sir,  while  they  remain  undone,  nothing  is  done. 

Mr.  President,  far  already  have  I  trespassed  upon 
your  generous  patience ;  but  there  are  other  things 
which  still  press  for  utterance.  Something  would  I 
say  of  the  arguments  by  which  our  Enterprise  is  com- 


NECESSITY,  PRACTICABILITY   AND    DIGNITY.       519 

mended ;  something  also  of  the  appeal  it  makes  to 
men  of  every  condition;  and  something  also  of  union, 
as  a  vital  necessity  among  all  who  love  Freedom. 

I  know  not  if  our  work  can  be  soon  accomplished. 
I  know  not,  sir,  if  you  or  I  can  live  to  see  in  our  Re- 
public the  vows  of  the  Fathers  at  length  fulfilled,  as 
the  last  fetter  falls  from  the  limbs  of  the  last  slave. 
But  one  thing  I  do  know,  beyond  all  doubt  or  ques- 
tion, that  this  Enterprise  must  go  on  —  that  in  its  irre- 
sistible current,  it  will  sweep  schools,  colleges,  churches, 
the  intelligence,  the  conscience,  and  the  religious 
aspirations  of  the  land,  while  all,  who  stand  in  its  way 
or  speak  evil  of  it,  are  laying  up  for  their  children,  if 
not  for  themselves,  days  of  sorrow  and  shame.  Better 
to  strive  in  this  cause,  even  unsuccessfully,  than  never 
to  strive  at  all. 

There  is  no  weapon  in  the  celestial  armory  of  truth  ; 
there  is  no  sweet  influence  from  the  skies ;  there  is  no 
generous  word  that  ever  dropped  from  human  lips, 
which  may  not  be  employed.  Ours,  too,  is  the  argu- 
ment alike  of  the  Conservative  and  the  Reformer,  for 
our  cause  stands  on  the  truest  conservatism  and  the 
truest  reform.  It  seeks  the  conservation  of  Freedom 
itself  and  of  its  kindred  historic  principles ;  it  seeks 
also  the  reform  of  Slavery  and  of  the  kindred  tyranny 
by  which  it  is  upheld.  Religion,  morals,  justice, 
economy,  the  Constitution,  may  each  and  all  be  in- 
voked ;  and  one  person  is  touched  by  one  argument  while 
another  person  is  touched  by  another.  You  do  not  forget 
how  Christopher  Columbus  won  Isabella  of  Spain  to  his 
enterprise  of  discovery.  He  first  presented  to  her  the 
temptation  of  extending  her  dominions  ;  but  she  heark- 
ened not.  He  next  promised  to  her  the  dazzling 


520  ANTI-SIAVEKY    ENTERPKISE  ;    ITS 

wealth  of  the  Indies ;  and  still  she  hearkened  not. 
But  when  at  last  was  pictured  to  her  pious  imagination 
the  poor  heathen  with  souls  to  be  saved,  then  the 
youthful  Queen  poured  her  royal  jewels  into  the  lap 
of  the  Genoese  adventurer,  and,  at  her  expense,  that 
small  fleet  was  sent  forth,  which  gave  to  Spain  and  to 
mankind  a  New  World. 

As  in  this  Enterprise,  there  is  a  place  for  every 
argument,  so  also  is  there  a  place  for  every  man.  Even 
as  on  the  broad  shield  of  Achilles,  sculptured  by 
divine  art,  was  wrought  every  form  of  human  activity  ; 
so  in  this  cause,  which  is  the  very  shield  of  Freedom, 
whatever  man  can  do  by  deed  or  speech,  may  find  its 
place.  One  may  act  in  one  way,  and  another  in 
another  way ;  but  all  must  act.  Providence  is  felt 
through  individuals  ;  the  dropping  of  water  wears  away 
the  rock  ;  and  no  man  can  be  so  humble  or  poor  as  to 
be  excused  from  this  work,  while  to  all  the  happy  in 
genius,  fortune  or  fame,  it  makes  a  special  appeal. 
Here  is  room  for  the  strengh  of  Luther,  and  the 
sweetness  of  Melancthon ;  for  the  wisdom  of  age,  and 
the  ardor  of  youth ;  for  the  judgment  of  the  statesman, 
and  the  eloquence  of  the  orator ;  for  the  grace  of  the 
scholar,  and  the  aspiration  of  the  poet ;  for  the  learning 
of  the  professor,  and  the  skill  of  the  lawyer ;  for  the 
exhortation  of  the  preacher,  and  the  persuasion  of  the 
press ;  for  the  various  energy  of  the  citizen,  and  the 
abounding  sympathy  of  woman. 

And  still  one  thing  more  is  needed,  without  which 
Liberty-loving  men,  and  even  their  arguments,  will 
fail  in  power  —  even  as  without  charity  all  graces  of 
knowledge,  speech  and  faith  are  said  to  profit  nothing. 
I  mean  that  Unity  of  Spirit  —  in  itself  a  fountain  of 


NECESSITY,  PRACTICABILITY    AND    DIGNITY.       521 

strength  —  which,  filling  the  people  of  the  North, 
shall  make  them  tread  under  foot  past  antipathies, 
decayed  dissensions,  and  those  irritating  names  which 
now  exist  only  as  the  tattered  ensigns  of  ancient  strife. 
It  is  right  to  be  taught  by  the  enemy  ;  and  with  their 
example  before  us  and  their  power  brandished  in  our 
very  faces,  we  cannot  hesitate.  With  them  Slavery  is 
made  the  main-spring  of  political  life,  and  the  ab- 
sorbing centre  of  political  activity  ;  with  them  all 
differences  are  swallowed  up  by  this  one  idea,  as  all 
other  rods  were  swallowed  up  by  the  rod  of  Aaron ; 
with  them  all  unite  to  keep  the  national  government 
under  the  control  of  slave-masters  ;  and  surely  we 
should  not  do  less  for  Freedom  than  they  do  for  Slavery. 
We  too  must  be  united.  Among  us  at  last  mutual 
criticism,  crimination,  and  feud,  must  give  place  to 
mutual  sympathy,  trust  and  alliance.  Face  to  face 
against  the  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  must  be  rallied  the 
UNITED  MASSES  of  the  North,  in  compact  political 
association  —  planted  on  the  everlasting  base  of  justice 
—  knit  together  by  the  instincts  of  a  common  danger, 
and  by  the  holy  sympathies  of  humanity  —  enkindled 
by  a  love  of  Freedom,  not  only  for  themselves,  but  for 
others  —  determined  to  enfranchise  the  national  gov- 
ernment from  degrading  thraldom  —  and  constituting 
the  BACKBONE  PARTY,  powerful  in  numbers, 
wealth,  and  intelligence,  but  more  powerful  still  in  an 
inspiring  cause.  Let  this  be  done,  and  victory  will  be 
ours. 

44* 


THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS 
—  THE  OUTRAGES  IN  KANSAS  — THE  DIFFER- 
ENT POLITICAL  PARTIES  — THE  REPUBLICAN 
PARTY. 

SPEECH  ON  THE  EVENING  OF  2o  NOVEMBER,  1855,  AT  FANEUIL 
HALL,  BOSTON. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS  OF  BOSTON  :  Are  you  for  Free- 
dom or  are  you  for  Slavery  ?  This  is  the  question 
which  you  are  to  answer  at  the  coming  election.  Above 
all  other  questions,  whether  national  or  local,  it  now 
lifts  itself  directly  in  the  path  of  every  voter,  and  calls 
for  a  plain  and  honest  reply.  There  it  is.  It  cannot 
be  avoided.  It  cannot  be  banished  away.  It  cannot 
be  silenced.  Forever  sounding  in  our  ears,  it  has  a 
mood  for  every  hour  —  stirring  us  at  times  as  with  the 
blast  of  a  trumpet  —  then  visiting  us  in  solemn  tones, 
like  the  bell  which  calls  to  prayer  —  and  then  again 
awaking  us  to  unmistakable  duty,  like  the  same  bell, 
when  at  midnight  it  summons  all  to  stay  the  raging 
conflagration. 

And  yet,  there  are  persons  among  us  who  seek  to 
put  this  great  question  aside.  Some  clamor  for  finan- 
cial reform,  and  hold  up  a  tax-bill ;  others  clamor  for 
a  modification  of  the  elective  franchise,  and  they  hold 
up  the  Pope  ;  some  speak  in  the  name  of  old  parties, 
calling  themselves  Democrats  or  Whigs  ;  others  in  the 
name  of  a  new  party,  which  shall  be  nameless  at  pres- 

[522] 


THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS.    523 

ent.  Surely  the  people  of  Massachusetts  will  not  be 
diverted  from  the  true  issue  —  involving  Freedom  for 
broad  territories  and  Freedom  for  themselves  —  by 
holding  up  a  tax-bill  or  by  holding  up  the  Pope.  The 
people  of  Massachusetts  are  intelligent  and  humane. 
They  are  not  bulls  to  be  turned  aside  by  shaking  in 
their  eyes  a  bit  of  red  cloth ;  nor  are  they  whales  to 
be  stopped  by  a  tub.  The  pertinacious  and  exclusive 
advocacy  with  which,  at  this  crisis  of  Freedom,  humbler 
matters  and  even  personal  aspirations  have  been  pressed, 
in  disregard  of  a  sacred  cause,  finds  a  prototype  in  an 
effort  of  selfishness,  which,  occurring  at  the  very  crisis 
of  our  Revolution,  was  chastised  by  the  humor  and 
eloquence  of  Patrick  Henry.  The  story  is  familiar. 
Our  small  army,  contending  for  Freedom,  was  reduced 
to  the  depths  of  distress  :  exposed,  almost  naked,  to  the 
rigors  of  a  winter  sky,  and  marking  the  frozen  ground 
with  the  blood  of  shoeless  feet.  "  Where  is  the  man," 
said  Patrick  Henry,  "  who  would  not  have  thrown 
open  his  fields,  his  barns,  his  cellars,  the  doors  of  his 
house,  the  portals  of  his  breast,  to  receive  the  mean- 
est soldier  in  that  little  famished  band  ?  Where  is 
the  man  ?  There  he  stands ;  but  whether  the  heart 
of  an  American  beats  in  his  bosom,  you  are  to  judge  ?  " 
It  was  to  John  Hook  that  he  pointed,  who  was  then 
pressing  a  vexatious  claim  for  supplies  taken  for  the 
use  of  these  starving  troops.  "  What  notes  of  discord 
do  I  hear  ?  "  exclaimed  the  orator,  "  They  are  the  notes 
of  John  Hook,  hoarsely  brawling  through  the  patriot 
camp,  Beef!  Beef!  Beef!"  And  now,  among  us, 
the  selfishness  of  John  Hook  is  renewed,  and  politicians 
disturb  the  hour,  as  they  'hoarsely  brawl  their  petty 
claims  through  our  patriot  camp.  But  above  all  theso 


524    THE  SLAVE  OLIGABCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS  ; 

is  heard  the  great  question,  which  will  not  be  post- 
poned, Are  you  for  Freedom,  or  are  you  for  Slavery  ? 
"  Under  which  king,  Bezonian,  speak  or  die  !  "  Are 
you  for  Freedom,  with  its  priceless  blessings,  or  are 
you  for  Slavery,  with  its  countless  wrongs  and  woes  ? 
Are  you  for  God,  or  are  you  for  the  Devil  ? 

Fellow-citizens,  I  speak  plainly  ;  nor  can  words  ex- 
hibiting the  enormity  of  Slavery  be  too  plain,  whether 
it  be  regarded  simply  in  the  legislative  and  judicial 
decisions  by  which  it  is  upheld,  or  in  the  unquestion- 
able facts  by  which  its  character  is  revealed.  It  has 
been  my  fortune  latterly  to  see  Slavery  face  to  face  in 
its  own  home,  in  the  Slave  States;  and  I  take  this 
early  opportunity  to  offer  my  testimony  to  the  open 
barbarism  which  it  sanctions.  I  have  seen  a  human 
being  knocked  off  at  auction  on  the  steps  of  a  court 
house,  and  as  the  sale  went  on,  compelled  to  open 
his  mouth  and  show  his  teeth,  like  a  horse ;  I  have 
been  detained  in  a  stage-coach,  that  our  driver  might, 
in  the  phrase  of  the  country,  "help  lick  a  nigger ;" 
and  I  have  been  constrained,  at  a  public  table,  to  wit- 
ness the  revolting  spectacle  of  a  poor  slave,  yet  a  child, 
almost  felled  to  the  floor  by  a  blow  on  the  head  from 
a  clenched  fist.  Such  incidents  were  not  calculated  to 
shake  my  original  convictions.  The  distant  slave- 
holder, who,  in  generous  solicitude  for  that  truth  which 
makes  for  Freedom,  feared  that,  like  a  certain  Doctor 
of  Divinity,  I  might,  under  the  influence  of  personal 
kindness,  be  hastily  swayed  from  these  convictions, 
may  be  assured  that  I  saw  nothing  to  change  them  in 
one  tittle,  but  to  confirm  them ;  while  I  was  entirely 
satisfied  that  here  in  Massachusetts,  where  all  read, 
the  true  character  of  Slavery  is  better  known  than  in 


THE    REPUBLICAN    PAEIY.  525 

the  Slave  States  themselves,  where  ignorance  and  pre- 
judice close  the  avenues  of  knowledge. 

And  now,  grateful  for  the  attention  with  which 
you  honor  me,  I  venture  to  hope  that  you  are  assem- 
bled honestly  to  hear  the  truth ;  not  to  gratify  preju- 
dice, to  appease  personal  antipathies,  or  to  indulge  a 
morbid  appetite  for  excitement ;  but  with  candor  and 
your  best  discrimination,  to  weigh  facts  and  arguments 
in  order  to  determine  the  course  of  duty.  I  address 
myself  particularly  to  the  friends  of  Freedom  —  the 
Republicans  —  on  whose  invitation  I  appear  to-night, 
but  I  make  bold  to  ask  you  of  other  parties,  who  now 
listen,  to  divest  yourselves  for  the  time,  of  partisan 
constraint  —  to  forget  for  the  moment  that  you  are 
Whigs  or  Democrats,  or  how  you  are  called,  and  to 
remember  only  that  you  are  men,  with  hearts  to  feel, 
with  heads  to  understand,  and  with  consciences  to 
guide.  Then  only  will  you  be  in  a  condition  to  receive 
the  truth.  "  If  men  are  not  aware  of  the  probable  bias 
of  party  over  them,  then  they  are  so  much  the  more 
likely  to  be  blindly  governed  by  it."  Such  is  the  wise 
remark  of  Wilberforce  ;  and  I  fear  that  among  us  there 
are  too  many  who  are  unconsciously  governed  by  such 
bias.  There  are  men,  who,  while  professing  candor, 
yet  show  that  the  bitterness  of  party  has  entered  into 
their  whole  character  and  lives,  as  the  bitterness  of  the 
soil  in  Sardinia  is  said  to  appear  even  in  its  honey. 

At  this  election  we  do  not  choose  a  President  of  the 
United  States,  or  member  of  Congress ;  but  a  Gov- 
ernor, Lieutenant  Governor,  Attorney  General,  and 
other  State  officers.  To  a  superficial  observer,  the 
occasion  seems  to  be  rather  local  than  national ;  it 


526    THE  SLAVE  OLIGABCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS  ; 

seems  to  belong  to  State  affairs  rather  than  Federal  — 
to  Massachusetts  rather  than  to  the  Union.  And  yet, 
such  are  our  relations  to  the  Union  —  such  is  the  sol- 
idarity of  these  confederate  States  —  so  are  we  all  knit 
together  as  a  Plural  Unit,  that  the  great  question  which 
now  disturbs  and  overshadows  the  whole  country,  be- 
comes at  once  national  and  local,  addressing  itself  alike 
to  the  whole  Republic  and  to  each  constituent  part. 
Freedom  in  Kansas,  and  our  own  Freedom  here  at 
home,  are  both  assailed.  They  must  be  defended. 
There  are  honorable  responsibilities  belonging  to  Mas- 
sachusetts, as  an  early  and  constant  vindicator  of  Free- 
dom, which  she  cannot  renounce.  "  If  the  trumpet 
give  an  uncertain  sound,  who  shall  prepare  himself  for 
the  battle?"  The  distant  emigrant  —  the  whole 
country  —  awaits  the  voice  of  our  beloved  Common- 
wealth in  answer  to  the  question,  Are  you  for  Freedom 
or  are  you  for  Slavery  ?  So  transcendent,  so  exclusive, 
so  all-absorbing  at  the  present  juncture  is  this  question, 
that  it  is  vain  to  speak  of  the  position  of  candidates  on 
other  things.  To  be  doubtful  on  this  is  to  be  wrong  ; 
and  to  be  wrong  on  this  is  to  be  wholly  wrong.  Pass- 
ing strange  it  is  that  here  in  Massachusetts,  in  this 
nineteenth  century,  we  should  be  constrained  to  put 
this  question.  Passing  strange,  that  when  it  is  put, 
there  should  be  any  hesitation  to  answer  it,  by  voice 
and  vote,  in  such  way  as  to  speak  the  loudest  for  Free- 
dom. 

A  plain  recital  will  show  the  urgency  of  this  ques- 
tion. At  the  period  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
upwards  of  half  a  million  colored  persons  were  held 
as  chattels  in  the  United  States.  These  unhappy 
people  were  originally  stolen  from  Africa,  or  were  the 


IHE    EEPUBLICAN    PARTY.  527 

children  of  those  who  had  been  stolen,  and,  though 
distributed  throughout  the  whole  country,  were  to  be 
found  chiefly  in  the  Southern  States.  The  Slavery 
to  which  they  were  reduced  was  simply  a  continuation 
of  the  violence  by  which  they  had  been  originally 
robbed  of  their  rights,  and  was  of  course  as  indefen- 
sible. The  fathers  of  the  Republic,  leaders  of  the 
war  of  Independence,  were  struck  with  the  inconsis- 
tency of  an  appeal  for  their  own  liberties  while  hold- 
ing in  bondage  fellow-men,  only  "  guilty  of  a  skin 
not  colored  like  their  own."  The  same  conviction 
animated  the  hearts  of  the  people,  whether  at  the  North 
or  South.  Out  of  ample  illustrations,  I  select  one 
which  specially  reveals  this  conviction,  and  possesses  a 
local  interest  in  this  community.  It  is  a  deed  of  man- 
umission, made  after  our  struggles  had  begun,  and 
preserved  in  the  Probate  records  of  the  County  of 
Suffolk.  Here  it  is  : 

"  Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  I,  JONATHAN  JACKSON, 
of  Newburyport,  in  the  county  of  Essex,  gentleman,  in  consider- 
ation of  the  impropriety  I  feel,  and  have  long  felt  in  beholding 
any  person  in  constant  bondage  —  more  especially  at  a  time  when 
my  country  is  so  warmly  contending  for  the  liberty  every  man 
ought  to  enjoy  —  and  having  sometime  since  promised  my  negro 
man,  POMP,  that  I  would  give  him  his  freedom,  and  in  further 
consideration  of  five  shillings,  paid  me  by  said  POMP,  I  do  hereby 
liberate,  manumit,  and  set  him  free  ;  and  I  do  hereby  remise 
and  release  unto  said  POMP,  all  demands  of  whatever  nature  I 
have  against  said  POMP. 

"  In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal, 
this  nineteenth  June,  1776. 

"  JONATHAN  JACKSON.     [Seal.] 

"  Witness,  Mary  Coburn,  William  Noyes." 

Such  was  the  general  spirit.     Public  opinion  found 


528    THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS  J 

free  vent  in  every  channel.     By  the  literature  of  the 
time  —  by  the  voice  of  the  Church,  and  by  the  solemn 
judgment   of    the    College,   Slavery  was    condemned, 
while  all  the  grandest  names  of  our  history  were  ar- 
rayed openly  against  it.     Of  these  I  might  dwell  on 
many ;  but  I  am  always  pleased  to  mention  an  illus- 
trious triumvirate  from  whose  concurring    testimony 
there  can  be  no  appeal.     There  was  Washington,  who 
at  one   time   declared  that   "  it  was  among  his  first 
wishes  to   see  some  plan  adopted  by  which  Slavery 
might  be  abolished  by  law,"  and  then  at  another,  that 
to   this  end,  "his   suffrage   should  not  be   wanting." 
There  also  was  Jefferson,  who  by  early  and  precocious 
efforts  for  "total  emancipation,"  placed  himself  fore- 
most among  the  Abolitionists  of  the  land  —  perpetually 
denouncing    Slavery  —  exposing  the  pernicious  influ- 
ences upon  the  master,  as  well  as  the  Slave  —  declar- 
ing that  the  love  of  justice  and  the  love   of  country 
pleaded  equally  for  the  Slave,  and  that  "  the  abolition 
of  domestic  Slavery  was  the  greatest  object  of  desire." 
There  also  was  the  venerable  patriot,  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin, who  did  not  hesitate  to  liken  the  American  master 
of  black  Slaves  to  the  Algerine  corsair  with  his  white 
Slaves,  and  who,  as  President  of  the  earliest  Abolition 
Society  —  the  same  of  which  Passmore  Williamson  is 
now   the   honored    Secretary  —  by    solemn    petition, 
called  upon  Congress  "  to  step  to  the  very  verge  of  the 
power  vested  in  it  to  discourage  every  species  of  traffic 
in  the  persons  of  our  fellow-men."     Thus  completely, 
by  this   triumvirate   of  Freedom,  was   Slavery   con- 
demned, and  the  power  of  the  Government  invoked 
against  it. 

By  such  men,  and  in  such  spirit,  was  the  National 


THE    EEPUBLICAN    PAKXT.  529 

Constitution   framed.       The    emphatic    words   of    the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  which  our  country  took 
upon  its  lips  as   baptismal  vows,  when  it  claimed  a 
place  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  were  not  forgot- 
ten.    The  preamble  to  the  Constitution  renews  them, 
when  it  declares  the  object  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  to  be,  among  other  things,  "  to  establish  justice, 
to  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  to  secure  the  bless- 
ings of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  posterity."     Thus,  ac- 
cording  to   undeniable  words,   the   Constitution  was 
ordained,  not  to   establish,  secure  or  sanction  Slavery 
—  not  to  promote  the  special  interest  of  slave-masters, 
bound   together  in   oligarchical  combination  —  not  to 
make  Slavery  national  in  any  way,  form  or  manner ; 
but  to  "  establish  justice,"  which  condemns  Slavery  — 
"  to  promote  the  general  welfare,"  which  repudiates 
every   Oligarchy  —  and   "  to   secure  the  blessings    of 
Liberty,"   in  whose   presence   human   bondage    must 
cease.     Early  in  the  Convention,  Gouverneur  Morris 
broke  forth  in  the  language  of  an  Abolitionist :   "  He 
never  would  concur  in  upholding  domestic  Slavery. 
It  was  a  nefarious  institution.     It  was  the  curse  of 
Heaven."     In  another  mood,  and  with  mild  juridical 
phrase,  Mr.  Madison,  himself  a  slaveholder,  "  thought  it 
wrong  to  admit  in  the  Constitution  the  idea  of  property 
in  man."     The  discreditable  words,  Slave  and  Slavery, 
were  not  allowed  to  find  a  place  in  the  instrument, 
while   a  clause  was   subsequently  added  by  way   of 
amendment,  —  and,  therefore,  according  to  the  rules  of 
interpretation,   particularly   revealing    the    sentiments 
of  the  founders,  —  which  is  calculated,  like  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  if  practically  applied,  to  carry 
Freedom  everywhere  within  the  sphere  of  its  influence. 
45 


530      THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  TTSUBPATIONS  ; 

It  was  specifically  declared  that  "  no  person  shall  be 
deprived  of  life,  liberty  or  property,  without  due  process 
of  law"  that  is,  without  due  presentment,  indictment 
or  other  formal  judical  proceedings.  Here  is  an  ex- 
press guard  of  personal  Liberty,  and  a  prohibition  of 
Slavery  everywhere  within  the  national  jurisdiction. 

In  this  spirit  was  the  National  Constitution  adopt- 
ed. In  this  spirit  the  National  Government  was  first 
organized  under  Washington.  And  here  there  is  a 
fact  of  peculiar  significance,  well  worthy  of  perpetual 
memory.  At  the  time  this  great  chief  took  his  first 
oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
the  National  Ensign  nowhere  within  the  National  Ter- 
ritory covered  a  single  slave.  On  the  sea,  an  execrable 
piracy,  the  trade  in  slaves,  was  still,  to  the  national 
scandal,  tolerated  beneath  the  national  flag.  In  the 
States,  as  a  sectional  institution,  beneath  the  shelter 
of  local  laws,  Slavery,  unhappily,  found  a  home.  But 
in  the  only  territories  at  this  time  belonging  to  the 
Nation  —  the  broad  region  of  the  North  West  —  it 
had  already,  by  the  Ordinance  of  Freedom,  been  made 
impossible,  even  before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. The  District  of  Columbia,  with  its  Fated  Dowry, 
had  not  yet  been  acquired. 

The  original  policy  of  the  Republic,  begun  under 
the  Confederation,  and  recognized  at  the  initiation  of 
the  new  Government,  is  clear  and  unmistakable. 
Compendiously  expressed,  it  was  non-intervention  by 
Congress  with  Slavery  in  the  States,  and  its  prohibition 
in  all  the  national  domain ;  and  also,  as  a  corollary 
from  this  policy,  the  complete  ascendency  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  Freedom  in  the  National  Government.  Thus 
were  reconciled  all  discordant  feelings  on  this  subject. 


THE    REPUBLICAN    PAUTY.  531 

Slave-masters  were  left  at  home  in  their  respective 
States,  without  any  intervention  from  Congress  to  hug 
Slavery  until  it  stung  them  to  contrition,  while  the 
great  mass  opposed  to  this  wrong  were  properly  ex- 
empted from  any  responsibility  for  it  in  the  national 
domain,  and  the  National  Government  was  placed 
indubitably  on  the  side  of  Freedom. 

Most  true  it  is  —  beyond  all  question  —  that  our 
Constitution  was  framed  by  the  lovers  of  Human 
Rights ;  that  it  was  animated  by  their  divine  spirit ; 
that  the  institution  of  Slavery  was  regarded  by  them 
with  aversion,  so  that,  though  covertly  alluded  to,  it 
was  not  named  in  the  instrument ;  that,  according  to 
the  debates  in  the  Convention,  they  refused  to  give  it 
any  "  sanction  "  or  "  to  admit  into  the  Constitution 
the  idea  of  property  in  man,"  while  they  looked  for- 
ward to  the  certain  day  when  it  would  be  obliterated 
from  the  land.  Surely,  fellow-citizens,  they  did  not 
contemplate  any  Oligarchical  combination,  constituting 
a  mighty  Propaganda,  such  as  we  now  witness,  to  up- 
hold and  extend  it ;  nor  can  any  person  put  his  finger 
on  any  clause,  phrase  or  word,  which  sanctions  any 
such  Propaganda;  and,  in  making  this  assertion,  I 
challenge  criticism  and  reply. 

But  the  original  policy  of  the  Government  did  not 
long  prevail.  The  generous  sentiments,  which  filled 
the  early  patriots,  giving  to  them  historic  grandeur, 
and  which  stamped  upon  the  Republic,  as  upon  the 
coin  which  it  circulated,  the  very  image  and  super- 
scription of  LIBEKTY,  gradually  lost  their  power.  The 
blessings  of  Freedom  being  already  secured  to  them- 
selves, the  freemen  of  the  land  became  indifferent  to 
the  Freedom  of  others.  They  ceased  to  think  of  the 


532    THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS; 

Slaves.  The  slave-masters  availed  themselves  of  thia 
indifference,  and,  though  few  in  number,  compared 
with  the  non-slave-masters,  even  in  the  Slave  States, 
they  have,  under  the  influence  of  an  imagined  self-in- 
terest, by  the  skilful  tactics  of  party,  and  especially  by 
an  unhesitating,  persevering  union  among  themselves 
—  swaying  by  turns  both  the  great  political  parties  — 
succeeded,  through  a  long  succession  of  years,  in  ob- 
taining the  mastery  of  the  National  Government, 
bending  it  to  their  purposes  —  compelling  it  to  do 
their  will,  and  imposing  upon  it  a  policy  offensive  to 
Freedom,  and  directly  opposed  to  the  sentiments  of  its 
founders ;  while  on  the  forehead  of  the  Republic,  once 
beaming  with  Liberty,  they  have  stamped  the  image 
and  superscription  of  SLAVERY. 

The  actual  number  of  slaveholders  in  the  country 
was  for  a  long  time  unknown,  and,  on  this  account,  was 
naturally  exaggerated.  It  was  often  represented  to 
be  very  great.  On  one  occasion,  a  distinguished  Rep- 
resentative from  Massachusetts,  whose  name  will  be 
ever  cherished  for  his  devotion  to  Human  Rights,  the 
Hon.  Horace  Mann,  was  rudely  interrupted  on  the 
floor  of  Congress  by  a  member  from  Alabama,  who 
averred  that  the  number  of  slaveholders  was  as  many 
as  three  millions.  At  that  time,  there  was  no  official 
document  by  which  this  assumption  could  be  corrected. 
But  at  last  we  have  it.  The  late  census,  taken  in  1850, 
shows  that  the  whole  number  of  this  peculiar  class  — 
embracing  men,  women  and  children,  all  told,  who  are 
so  unfortunate  as  to  hold  slaves  —  was  only  three 
hundred  and  forty- seven  thousand ;  and,  of  this  num- 
ber, the  larger  part  are  small  slaveholders,  leaving  only 
ninety-two  thousand  persons  as  the  owners  of  the  great 


THE    REPUBLICAN    PABXY.  533 

mass  of  slaves,  and  as  the  substantial  representatives 
of  this  class.  And  yet,  this  small  company  —  some- 
times called  the  Slave  Power,  or  Black  Power,  better 
called  the  Slave  Oligarchy  —  now  dominates  over  the 
Republic,  determines  its  national  policy,  disposes  of 
its  offices,  and  sways  all  to  its  absolute  will.  Yes, 
fellow-citizens,  it  is  an  Oligarchy  —  odious  beyond 
precedent ;  heartless,  grasping,  tyrannical ;  careless  of 
humanity,  right  or  the  Constitution ;  wanting  that 
foundation  of  justice  which  is  the  essential  base  of 
every  civilized  community ;  stuck  together  only  by 
confederacy  in  spoliation  ;  and  constituting  in  itself  a 
magnum  latrocinium  ;  while  it  degrades  the  Free  States 
to  the  condition  of  a  slave  plantation,  under  the  lash 
of  a  vulgar,  despised  and  revolting  overseer. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  National  Government  which 
the  Slave  Oligarchy  does  not  appropriate.  It  entered 
into  and  possessed  both  the  old  political  parties,  Whig 
and  Democrat  —  as  witness  their  servile  resolutions  at 
Baltimore  —  making  them  one  in  subserviency,  though 
double  in  form ;  and  renewing  in  them  the  mystery 
of  the  Siamese  twins,  which,  though  separate  in  body 
and  different  in  name,  were  constrained,  by  an  un- 
natural ligament,  to  a  community  of  exertion.  It  now 
holds  the  keys  of  every  office,  from  that  of  President 
down  to  the  humblest  Postmaster,  compelling  all  to  do 
its  bidding.  It  organizes  the  Cabinet.  It  directs  the 
Army  and  Navy.  It  manages  every  department  of 
public  business.  It  presides  over  the  census.  It  con- 
trols the  Smithsonian  Institution,  founded  by  the  gen- 
erous charity  of  a  foreigner,  to  promote  the  interests 
of  knowledge.  It  subsidizes  the  national  press,  alike 
in  the  national  capital  and  in  the  remotest  village  of 
45* 


534    THE  SLAVE  OLIGAKCHY  AND  ITS  USUKPATIONS  ; 

the  North.  It  sits  in  the  chair  of  the  President  of  th0 
Senate,  and  also  in  the  chair  of  the  Speaker  of  the 
House.  It  arranges  the  Committees  of  both  bodies, 
placing  at  their  head  only  the  servitors  of  Slavery,  and 
excluding  therefrom  the  friends  of  Freedom,  though 
entitled  to  such  places  by  their  character  and  the  States 
they  represent ;  and  thus  it  controls  the  legislation  of 
the  country. 

In  maintaining  its  power,  the  Slave  Oligarchy  has 
applied  a  test  for  office,  very  different  from  that  of 
Jefferson,  "  Is  he  honest  ?  Is  he  capable  ?  Is  he 
faithful  to  the  Constitution  ? "  These  things  are  all 
forgotten  now  in  the  single  question,  "  Is  he  faith- 
ful to  Slavery  ?  "  With  arrogant  ostracism  it  excludes 
from  every  national  office  all  who  cannot  respond 
to  this  test.  So  complete  and  irrational  has  this 
tyranny  become,  that  at  this  moment,  while  I  now 
speak,  could  Washington,  or  Jefferson,  or  Franklin, 
once  more  descend  from  their  spheres  above,  to  mingle 
in  our  affairs  and  bless  us  with  their  wisdom,  not  one 
of  them,  with  his  recorded,  unretracted  opinions  on 
Slavery  could  receive  a  nomination  for  the  Presidency 
from  either  of  the  political  parties  calling  themselves 
national ;  nor,  stranger  still,  could  either  of  these 
sainted  patriots,  whose  names  alone  open  a  perpetual 
fountain  of  gratitude  in  all  your  hearts,  be  confirmed 
by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for  any  political 
function  whatever,  not  even  for  the  office  of  Postmas- 
ter. What  I  now  say,  amidst  your  natural  astonish- 
ment, I  have  often  said  before  in  addressing  the  people, 
and  more  than  once  uttered  from  my  seat  in  the  Senate, 
and  no  man  there  has  made  answer,  for  no  man  who 
has  sat  in  its  secret  sessions,  and  there  learned  the  test 


THE   BEPTJBLICAN    PARTY.  535 

which  is  practically  applied,  could  make  answer ;  and 
I  ask  you  to  accept  this  statement  as  my  testimony, 
derived  from  the  experience  of  four  years  which  has 
been  my  lot  under  the  commission  which  I  have  re- 
ceived from  our  honored  Commonwealth.  Yes,  fellow- 
citizens,  had  this  test  prevailed  in  the  earlier  days, 
Washington  —  first  in  war,  first  in  peace,  first  in  the 
hearts  of  his  countrymen  —  could  not  have  been  cre- 
ated generalissimo  of  the  American  forces  ;  Jefferson 
could  not  have  taken  his  place  on  the  Committee  to 
draft  the  Declaration  of  Independence ;  and  Franklin 
could  not  have  gone  forth  to  France,  with  the  com- 
mission of  the  infant  Republic,  to  secure  the  invaluable 
alliance  of -that  ancient  kingdom. 

All  tyranny,  like  murder,  is  foul  at  the  best ;  but 
this  is  most  foul,  strange  and  unnatural,  when  it  is 
considered  that  the  States,  which  are  the  home  of  the 
Slave  Oligarchy,  are  far  inferior  to  the  Free  States  in 
population,  wealth,  education,  schools,  churches,  libra- 
ries, manufactures  and  resources  of  all  kinds.  By  the 
last  census,  there  was  in  the  Free  States  a  solid  popu- 
lation of  freemen,  amounting  to  upwards  of  thirteen 
millions,  while  in  the  Slave  States,  there  was  a  like 
population  of  only  six  millions.  In  other  respects, 
important  to  civilization,  the  disparity  was  as  great. 
And  yet,  from  the  beginning,  they  have  taken  to  them- 
selves the  lion's  share  among  the  honors  and  trusts  of 
the  Republic.  But,  without  exposing  the  game  of 
political  "  sweepstakes,"  which  the  Slave  Oligarchy 
has  perpetually  played  —  interesting  as  it  would  be  — 
I  prefer  to  hold  up  for  one  moment  the  assumptions, 
aggressions  and  usurpations  by  which,  in  defiance  of 


536    THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS  ; 

the  Constitution,  it  has  made  Slavery  national,  when  it 
is,  in  reality,  sectional.  Here  is  a  brief  catalogue  : 

Early  in  this  century,  when  the  District  of  Columbia 
was  finally  occupied  as  the  National  Capitol,  the  Slave 
Oligarchy  succeeded,  in  defiance  of  the  spirit  of  the 
Constitution,  and  even  of  the  express  letter  of  one  of 
its  amendments,  in  securing  for  Slavery,  within  the 
District,  the  countenance  of  the  National  Government. 
Until  then,  Slavery  had  existed  nowhere  on  the  land 
within  the  reach  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  this  Gov- 
ernment. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  next  secured  for  Slavery  an- 
other recognition  under  the  National  Government,  in 
the  broad  territory  of  Louisiana,  purchased  from 
France. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  next  placed  Slavery  again 
under  the  sanction  of  the  National  Government,  in  the 
territory  of  Florida,  purchased  from  Spain. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy,  waxing  powerful,  was  able, 
after  a  severe  struggle,  to  dictate  terms  to  the  National 
Government,  in  the  Missouri  Compromise,  compelling 
it  to  receive  that  State  into  the  Union  with  a  slave- 
holding  Constitution. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  instigated  and  carried  on  a 
most  expensive  war  in  Florida,  mainly  to  recover  fugi- 
tive slaves,  thus  degrading  the  army  of  the  United 
States  to  be  Slave-hunters. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  wrested  from  Mexico  the  Prov- 
ince of  Texas,  and,  triumphing  over  all  opposition, 
finally  secured  its  admission  into  the  Union,  with  a 
Constitution  making  Slavery  perpetual. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  plunged  the  country  in  war 
with  Mexico,  in  order  to  gain  new  lands  for  Slavery. 


THE   REPUBLICAN    PABTY.  537 

The  Slave  Oligarchy,  with  the  meanness,  as  well 
as  the  insolence  of  tyranny,  has  compelled  the  National 
Government  to  abstain  from  acknowledging  the  neigh- 
bor republic  of  Hayti,  where  slaves  have  become  free- 
men, and  established  an  independent  nation. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  has  compelled  the  National 
Government  to  stoop  ignobly  before  the  British  Queen, 
to  secure  compensation  for  slaves,  who,  in  the  exercise 
of  the  natural  rights  of  man,  had  asserted  and  achieved 
their  freedom  on  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  and  afterwards 
sought  shelter  in  Bermuda. , 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  has  compelled  the  National 
Government  to  seek  to  negotiate  treaties  for  the  sur- 
render of  fugitive  slaves,  thus  making  our  Republic 
assert  abroad,  in  foreign  lands,  property  in  human 
flesh. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  has  joined  in  declaring  the 
foreign  slave-trade  piracy,  but  insists  on  the  coastwise 
slave-trade,  under  the  auspices  of  the  National  Gov- 
ernment. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  for  several  years  rejected  the 
petitions  to  Congress  adverse  to  Slavery,  thus,  in  order 
to  shield  this  wrong,  practically  denying  the  right  of 
petition. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy,  in  defiance  of  the  privileges 
secured  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
imprisons  the  free  colored  citizens  of  Massachusetts, 
and  sometimes  sells  them  into  bondage. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  insulted  and  exiled  from  Charles- 
ton and  New  Orleans,  the  honored  representatives  of 
Massachusetts,  who  were  sent  to  those  places  with  the 
commission  of  the  Commonwealth,  in  order  to  throw 
the  shield  of  the  Constitution  over  her  colored  citizens. 


538    THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  TTSUKPATIONS  J 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  has,  by  the  pen  of  Mr.  Calhoun, 
as  Secretary  of  State,  in  formal  despatches,  made  the 
Republic  stand  before  the  nations  of  the  earth  as  the 
vindicator  of  Slavery. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  has  put  forth  the  hideous 
effrontery  that  Slavery  can  go  to  all  newly  acquired 
territories,  and  enjoy  the  protection  of  the  National 
Flag. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy  has  imposed  upon  the  country 
an  Act  of  Congress,  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves, 
revolting  in  its  mandates,  and  many  times  uncon- 
stitutional ;  especially  on  two  grounds,  first,  as  a 
usurpation  by  Congress  of  powers  not  granted  by  the 
Constitution,  and  an  infraction  of  rights  secured  to  the 
States ;  and  secondly,  as  a  denial  of  Trial  by  Jury,  in 
a  question  of  Personal  Liberty,  and  a  suit  at  common 
law. 

The  Slave  Oligarchy,  in  defiance  of  the  declared 
desires  of  the  Fathers  to  limit  and  discourage  Slavery, 
has  successively  introduced  into  the  Union,  Kentucky, 
Tennessee,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Missouri, 
Arkansas  and  Texas,  as  slave-holding  States,  thus,  at 
each  stage,  fortifying  its  political  power,  and  making 
the  National  Government  give  new  sanction  to 
Slavery. 

Such,  fellow-citizens,  are  some  of  the  assumptions, 
aggressions  and  usurpations  of  the  Slave  Oligarchy  !  By 
such  steps,  the  National  Government  has  been  perverted 
from  its  original  purposes,  its  character  changed,  and  its 
powers  all  surrendered  to  Slavery.  Surely,  no  patriot 
soul  can  listen  to  this  recital,  without  confessing  that  our 
first  political  duty  is,  at  all  hazards  and  without  com- 
promise, to  oppose  this  Oligarchy,  to  dislodge  it  from 


THE    KEPTJBLICAN    PABTY.  539 

the  National  Government,  and  to  bring  the  administra- 
tion back  to  that  character  which  it  enjoyed  when  first 
organized  under  Washington,  himself  an  Abolitionist, 
and  surrounded  by  Abolitionists,  while  the  whole 
country,  by  its  Church,  its  Colleges,  its  Literature,  and 
all  its  best  voices,  was  united  against  Slavery,  and  the 
National  Flag  nowhere  within  the  national  territory 
covered  a  single  slave. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  have  said  enough  to  stir  you ; 
but  this  humiliating  tale  is  not  yet  finished.  An  Oli- 
garchy seeking  to  maintain  an  outrage  like  Slavery, 
and  drawing  its  inspirations  from  this  fountain  of 
wickedness,  is  naturally  base,  false  and  heedless  of 
justice.  It  is  vain  to  expect  that  men,  who  have 
screwed  themselves  to  become  the  propagandists  of 
this  enormity,  will  be  constrained  by  any  compromise, 
compact,  bargain  or  plighted  faith.  As  the  less  is 
contained  in  the  greater,  so  there  is  no  vileness  of  dis- 
honesty, no  denial  of  human  rights,  that  is  not  plainly 
involved  in  the  support  of  an  enormity,  which  begins 
by  changing  man,  created  in  the  image  of  God,  into  a 
chattel,  and  sweeps  little  children  away  to  the  auction- 
block.  A  power  which  Heaven  never  gave,  can  be 
maintained  only  by  means  which  Heaven  can  never 
sanction.  And  this  conclusion  of  reason  is  confirmed 
by  late  experience ;  and  here  I  approach  the  special 
question  under  which  the  country  now  shakes  from 
side  to  side.  The  protracted. struggle  of  1820,  known 
as  the  Missouri  Question,  ended  with  the  admission  of 
Missouri  as  a  slaveholding  State,  and  the  prohibition 
of  Slavery  in  all  the  remaining  territory,  West  of  the 
Mississippi  and  North  of  36°  30'.  Here  was  a  solemn 


540    THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS  ; 

act  of  legislation,  called  at  tlie  time  a  compromise,  a 
covenant,  a  compact,  first  brought  forward  by  the  Slave 
Oligarchy  —  vindicated  by  it  in  debate  —  finally  sanc- 
tioned by  its  votes,  also  upheld  at  the  time  by  a  slave- 
holding  President,  James  Monroe,  and  his  cabinet  — 
of  whom  a  majority  were  slaveholders,  including  Mr. 
Calhoun  himself  —  and  made  the  condition  of  the  ad- 
mission of  Missouri  —  without  which  that  State  could 
not  have  been  received  into  the  Union.  Suddenly, 
during  the  last  year  —  without  any  notice  in  the  pub- 
lic press  or  the  prayer  of  a  single  petition  —  after  an 
acquiescence  of  thirty-three  years,  and  the  irreclaim- 
able possession  by  the  Slave  Oligarchy  of  its  special 
share  in  the  provisions  of  this  Compromise  —  in  viola- 
tion of  every  obligation  of  honor,  compact  and  good 
neighborhood  —  and  in  contemptuous  disregard  of  the 
out-gushing  sentiments  of  an  aroused  North,  this  time- 
honored  Prohibition,  in  itself  a  Landmark  of  Freedom, 
was  overturned,  and  the  vast  region,  now  known  as 
Kansas  and  Nebraska,  was  opened  to  Slavery ;  and  this 
was  done  under  the  disgraceful  lead  of  Northern  poli- 
ticians, and  with  the  undisguised  complicity  of  a  North- 
ern President,  forgetful  of  Freedom,  forgetful  also  of 
Hs  reiterated  pledges,  that  during  his  administration 
the  repose  of  the  country  should  receive  no  shock. 

And  all  this  was  perpetrated  under  pretences  of 
popular  rights.  Freedom  was  betrayed  by  a  kiss.  In 
defiance  of  an  uninterrupted  prescription  down  to  our 
day — early  sustained  at  the  South  as  well  as  the  North 
—  leaning  at  once  on  Jefferson  and  Washington  — 
sanctioned  by  all  the  authoritative  names  of  our  his- 
tory, and  beginning  with  the  great  Ordinance  by  which 
Slavery  was  prohibited  in  the  North  West  —  it  was 


THE    KEPUBLICAK    PAETY.  541 

pretended  that  the  people  of  the  United  States,  who 
are  the  proprietors  of  the  national  domain,  and  who, 
according  to  the  Constitution,  may  "  make  all  needful . 
rules  and  regulations  "  for  its  government,  neverthe- 
less were  not  its  sovereigns  —  that  they  had  no  power 
to  interdict  Slavery  there ;  but  that  this  eminent  do- 
minion resided  in  the  few  settlers,  called  squatters, 
whom  chance  or  a  desire  to  better  their  fortunes,  first 
hurried  into  these  places.  To  this  precarious  handful, 
sprinkled  over  immense  spaces,  it  was  left,  without  any 
constraint  from  Congress,  to  decide,  whether  into  these 
vast,  unsettled  lands,  as  into  the  veins  of  an  infant, 
should  be  poured  the  festering  poison  of  Slavery  des- 
tined, as  time  advances,  to  show  itself  in  cancers  and 
leprous  disease,  or  whether  they  should  be  filled  with 
all  the  glowing  life  of  Freedom.  And  this  great 
power,  transferred  from  Congress  to  these  few  settlers, 
was  hailed  by  the  new-fangled  name  of  Squatter  Sov- 
ereignty. 

It  was  fit  that  the  original  outrage  perpretrated 
under  such  pretences,  should  be  followed  by  other 
outrages  perpetrated  in  defiance  of  these  pretences. 
In  the  race  of  emigration,  the  freedom-loving  freemen 
of  the  North  promised  to  obtain  the  ascendency,  and 
in  the  exercise  of  the  conceded  sovereignty  of  the  set- 
tlers, to  prohibit  Slavery.  The  Slave  Oligarchy  was 
aroused  to  other  efforts.  Of  course  it  stuck  at  noth- 
ing. On  the  day  of  election  when  this  vaunted  popular 
sovereignty  was  first  invoked,  hirelings  from  Missouri, 
having  no  home  in  the  territory,  entered  it  in  bands 
of  fifties  and  hundreds,  and  assuming  an  electoral 
franchise  to  which  they  had  no  claim,  trampled  under 
foot  the  Constitution  and  laws.  Violently,  ruthlessly 
46 


542    THE  SLATE  OLIGARCHY  AXD  ITS  USURPATIONS  ; 

the  polls  were  possessed  by  these  invaders.  The  same 
Northsrn  President,  who  did  not  shrink  from  unblush- 
ing complicity  in  the  original  outrage,  now  assumed 
another  complicity.  Though  prompt  to  lavish  the 
Treasury,  the  Army  and  the  Navy  of  the  Republic  in 
hunting  a  single  slave  through  the  streets  of  Boston, 
he  could  see  the  Constitution  and  laws,  which  he  was 
sworn  to  protect,  and  those  popular  rights  which  he 
had  affected  to  promote,  all  struck  down  in  Kansas, 
and  then  give  new  scope  to  these  invaders  by  the  re- 
moval of  the  faithful  Governor,  —  who  had  become 
obnoxious  to  the  Slave  Oligarchy  because  he  would 
not  become  its  tool,  —  and  the  substitution  of  another, 
who  vindicated  the  dishonest  choice  by  making  haste, 
on  his  first  arrival  there,  to  embrace  the  partisans  of 
Slavery.  The  legislature,  which  was  constituted  by 
the  overthrow  of  the  electoral  franchise,  proceeded  to 
overthrow  every  safeguard  of  Freedom.  At  one  swoop 
it  adopted  all  the  legislation  of  Missouri,  including  its 
Slave  Code  ;  by  another  act  it  imposed  unprecedented 
conditions  upon  the  exercise  of  the  electoral  franchise, 
and  by  still  another  act  it  denounced  the  punishment 
of  death  no  less  than  five  times  against  as  many  differ- 
ent forms  of  interference  with  the  alleged  property  in 
human  flesh,  while  all  who  only  write  or  speak  against 
Slavery  are  adjudged  to  be  felons.  Yes,  fellow-citizens, 
should  any  person  there  presume  to  print  or  circulate 
the  speech  in  which  I  now  express  my  abhorrence  of 
Slavery,  and  deny  its  constitutional  existence  anywhere 
within  the  national  jurisdiction,  he  would  become 
liable  under  this  act  as  a  felon.  And  this  overthrow 
of  all  popular  rights  is  done  in  the  name  of  Popular 
Sovereignty.  Surely  its  authors  follow  well  the  ex- 


v* 


THE    EEPITBI/ICAN    PARTY.  543 

ample  of  the  earliest  Squatter  Sovereign  —  none  other 
than  Satan  —  who,  stealing  into  Eden,  was  there  dis- 
covered, by  the  celestial  angels,  just  beginning  his 
work ;  as  Milton  tells  us, 


" him  there  they  found 

Squat  like  a  toad,  close  at  the  ear  of  Eve." 

Would  you  know  the  secret  of  this  unprecedented 
endeavor,  beginning  with  the  repeal  of  the  Prohibition 
of  Slavery  down  to  the  latest  atrocity  ?  The  answer 
is  at  hand.  It  is  not  merely  to  provide  new  markets 
for  Slaves,  or  even  to  guard  Slavery  in  Missouri,  but 
to  build  another  Slave  State,  and  thus,  by  the  presence 
of  two  additional  slaveholding  Senators,  to  give  in- 
creased preponderance  to  the  Slave  Oligarchy  in  the 
National  Government.  As  men  are  murdered  for  the 
sake  of  their  money,  so  is  this  territory  blasted  in 
peace  and  prosperity,  in  order  to  wrest  its  political  in- 
fluence to  the  side  of  Slavery. 

But  a  single  usurpation  is  not  enough  to  employ  the 
rapacious  energies  of  our  Oligarchy.  At  this  moment, 
while  the  country  is  pained  by  the  heartless  conspiracy 
against  Freedom  in  Kansas,  we  are  startled  by  another 
effort,  which  contemplates,  not  merely  the  political 
subjugation  of  the  National  Government,  but  the  ac- 
tual introduction  of  Slavery  into  the  Free  States.  The 
vaunt  has  been  made,  that  slaves  will  yet  be  counted 
in  the  sacred  shadow  of  the  monument  on  Bunker  Hill, 
and  more  than  one  step  has  been  taken  towards  this 
effrontery.  A  person  of  Virginia  has  asserted  his  right 
to  hold  slaves  in  New  York  on  the  way  to  Texas  ;  and 
this  claim  is  still  pending  before  the  highest  judicial 


544    THE    SLATE    OLIGARCHY  AXD    ITS  USURPATIONS  J 

tribunal  of  the  land.     A  similar  claim  has  been  assert- 
ed in   Pennsylvania,  and  thus  far  been  sustained  by 
the  court.    A  blameless  citizen,  who  —  in  obedience  to 
his  generous   impulses  and  in  harmony  with   the  re- 
ceived law  —  merely  gave  notice  to  a  person  held  as  a 
slave  in  a  Free  State,  that  she  was  in  reality  free,  has 
been  thrust   into  jail,   and  now,   after   the   lapse   oi 
months,  still  languishes  there,  the  victim  of  this  pre- 
tension ;  while,  —  that  no  excess  might  be  wanting  in 
the  madness  of  this  tyranny  —  the  great  writ  of  Habeas 
Corpus,  proudly  known  as  the  writ  of  deliverance,  has 
been  made  the  instrument  of  his  imprisonment.     Out- 
rage treads  upon  outrage,  and  great  rights   pass  away 
to  perish.     Alas  !  the  needful  tool  for  such  work  is  too 
easily  found  in  places  low  and  high  —  in   the   alleys 
and  cellars  of  Boston  —  on  the  bench  of  the  judge 
—  in  the  chair  of  the  President.     But  it  is  the  power 
behind  which  I  arraign.     The  Slave  Oligarchy  does  it ; 
the  Slave  Oligarchy  does  it  alK 

To  the  prostration  of  this  Oligarchy  you  are  bound 
by  a  three-fold  cord  of  duty  ;  first,  as  you  would  secure 
Freedom  for  yourselves  ;  secondly,  as  you  would  up- 
hold Freedom  in  distant  Kansas ;  and  thirdly,  as  you 
would  preserve  the  Union  in  its  early  strength  and 
integrity.  The  people  of  Kansas  are,  many  of  them, 
from  Massachusetts  —  bone  of  our  bone,  flesh  of  our 
flesh;  but  as  fellow-citizens  under  the  Constitution, 
they  are  bound  to  us  by  tids  which  we  cannot  disown. 
Nay,  more ;  by  the  subtle  cord  which  connects  this 
embryo  settlement  with  the  Republic,  they  are  made 
a  part  of  us.  The  outrage  which  touches  them  touches 
us.  What  galls  them  galls  us.  The  fetter  which 


THE    REPUBLICAN    PARTY.  545 

binds  the  slave  in  Kansas  binds  every  citizen  in 
Massachusetts.  Thus  are  we  prompted  to  their  rescue, 
not  only  to  save  them,  but  also  to  save  ourselves.  The 
tyranny  which  now  treads  them  down,  has  already 
trampled  on  us,  and  only  awaits  an  opportunity  to  dc  it 
again.  In  its  complete  overthrow  is  the  only  way  of 
safety.  Indeed,  this  must  be  done  before  anything 
else  can  be  done.  In  vain  you  seek  economy  in  the 
Government  —  improvement  of  rivers  and  harbors  — 
or  dignity  and  peace  in  our  foreign  relations,  while 
this  power  holds  the  national  purse  and  the  national 
sword.  Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy,  and  the  door 
will  be  wide  open  for  all  generous  reforms.  Oh  !  the 
imagination  loses  itself  in  the  vain  endeavor  to  picture 
the  good  that  will  be  then  accomplished.  Prostrate 
the  Slave  Oligarchy,  and  Liberty  will  become  the  uni- 
versal law  of  all  the  national  territories  ;  Slavery  will 
cease  at  once  in  the  national  capital ;  the  slave-trade 
will  no  longer  skulk  along  our  coasts  beneath  the 
national  flag ;  and  the  wickedness  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Bill  will  be  driven  from  the  statute  book.  Pros- 
trate the  Slave  Oligarchy,  and  the  national  Govern- 
ment will  be  at  length  divorced  from  Slavery  and  the 
national  policy  will  be  changed  from  Slavery  to  Free- 
dom. Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy,  and  the  North 
will  no  longer  be  the  vassal  of  the  South.  Prostrate 
the  Slave  Oligarchy,  and  the  North  will  be  admitted 
to  its  just  share  in  the  trusts  and  honors  of  the  Re- 
public. Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy,  and  you  will 
possess  the  master-key  with  which  to  unlock  the  whole 
house  of  bondage.  Prostrate  the  Slave  Oligarchy, 
and  the  gates  of  emancipation  will  be  open  at  the 
^outh. 

46* 


546    THE  SLATE  OLIGAKCHY  AXD  ITS  TJSUEPATIOXS  ; 

To  this  work,  fellow-citizens,  you  are  now  summon- 
ed. By  your  votes  you  are  to  declare,  not  merely 
your  predilection  for  men,  but  your  devotion  to  princi- 
ples. Men  are  erring  and  mortal.  Principles  are 
steadfast  and  immortal.  Forgetting  all  other  things  — 
especially  forgetting  men  —  you  are  to  cast  your  votes 
so  as  best  to  promote  Freedom. 

But  in  the  choice  of  men  we  are  driven  to  the  or- 
ganization of  parties ;  and  here  c  ccurs  the  practical 
question  on  which  hinges  our  immediate  duty,  by 
what  political  party  can  our  desire  be  accomplished  ? 
There  are  individuals  in  all  the  parties,  even  the 
Democratic,  who  hate  Slavery,  and  say  so ;  but  a 
political  party  cannot  be  judged  by  the  private  opinions 
of  some  of  its  members.  Something  else,  more  solid 
and  tangible,  must  appear.  The  party  that  we  select 
to  bear  the  burden  and  honor  of  our  great  controversy, 
must  be  adapted  to  the  work.  It  must  be  a  perfect 
machine.  Wedded  to  Freedom,  for  better  or  for 
worse,  and  cleaving  to  it  with  a  grasp  never  to  be 
unloosed,  it  must  be  clear,  open  and  unequivocal  in 
its  declarations,  an'd  must  admit  no  other  question  to 
divert  its  energies.  It  must  be  all  in  Freedom,  and, 
like  Caesar's  wife,  it  must  be  above  suspicion.  But 
besides  this  character  which  it  must  sustain  in  Massa- 
chusetts, it  must  be  prepared  to  take  its  place  in  close 
phalanx  with  the  united  masses  of  the  North,  now  or- 
ganizing through  all  the  Free  States,  junctceque  wnbone, 
phalanges,  for  the  protection  of  Freedom,  and  the  over- 
throw of  the  Slave  Oligarchy. 

Bearing  these  conditions  in  mind,  there  are  three 
parties  which  we  may  dismiss,  one  by  one,  as  they  pass 
in  review.  Men  do  not  gather  grapes  from  thorns, 


XHJE    REPUBLICAN    PARTY.  547 

nor  figs  from  thistles ;  nor  do  they  expect  patriotism 
from  Benedict  Arnold.  A  party  which  sustains  the 
tyrannies  and  perfidies  of  the  Slave  Oligarchy,  and  is 
represented  by  the  President,  through  whom  has  come 
so  much  of  all  our  woe,  need  not  occupy  our  thn^ ;  and 
such  is  the  Democratic  party.  If  there  be  within  the 
sound  of  my  voice  a  single  person,  who,  professing 
sympathy  with  Freedom,  still  votes  with  this  party,  to 
him  I  would  say  :  The  name  of  Democrat  is  a  tower  of 
strength  ;  let  it  not  be  a  bulwark  of  Slavery  ;  for  the 
sake  of  a  name  do  not  sacrifice  a  thing  ;  for  the  sake  of 
party  do  not  surrender  Freedom. 

According  to  a  familar  rule,  handed  down  from  dis- 
tant antiquity,  we  are  to  say  nothing  but  good  of  the 
dead.  How,  then,  shall  I  speak  of  the  late  powerful 
Whig  party  —  by  whose  giant  contests  the  whole 
country  was  once  upheaved  —  but  which  has  now 
ceased  to  exist,  except  as  the  shadow  of  a  name  ? 
Here,  in  Massachusetts,  a  few  who  do  not  yet  know 
that  it  is  dead,  have  met  together  and  proffered  their 
old  allegiance.  They  are  the  Rip  Van  Winkles  of  our 
politics.  This  respectable  character,  falling  asleep  in  the 
mountains,  drowsed  undisturbed  throughout  the  whole 
war  of  the  Revolution,  and,  then  returnimg  to  his  native 
village,  ignorant  of  all  that  had  passed,  proposed  to  drink 
the  health  of  King  George.  But  our  Whigs  arc  less 
tolerant  and  urbane  than  this  awakened  Dutchman. 
In  petulant  and  irrational  assumptions  they  are  like 
the  unfortunate  judge,  who,  being  aroused  from  his 
slumbers  on  the  bench,  by  a  sudden  crash  of  thunder, 
exclaimed,  "  Mr.  Crier,  stop  the  noise  in  Court."  The 
thunder  would  not  be  hushed ;  nor  will  the  voice  of 
Freedom,  now  reverberating  throughout  the  land. 


548    THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS  ; 

Some  there  are  among  these  who  openly  espouse  the 
part  of  Slavery,  while  others,  by  their  indifference, 
place  themselves  in  the  same  unhappy  company.  If 
their  position  at  this  moment  were  of  sufficient  impor- 
tance to  justify  grave  remark,  they  should  be  exhibited 
as  kindred  in  spirit  and  isolation  to  the  Tories  of  our 
Revolution,  or,  at  least,  as  the  Bourbons  of  Massachu- 
setts —  always  claiming  everything,  learning  nothing, 
forgetting  nothing,  and  at  last  condemned  by  an. 
aroused  people  for  their  disloyalty  to  Freedom.  Let 
no  person  who  truly  loves  Freedom  join  this  company, 
tempted  by  its  name,  its  music,  and  its  banners. 

There  is  still  another  party,  which  claims  your  votes, 
but  permit  me  to  say,  at  this  crisis,  with  small  pre- 
tence. I  am  at  a  loss  to  determine  the  name  by  which 
it  may  be  properly  called.  It  is  sometimes  known  as 
the  Know  Nothing  party  ;  sometimes  as  the  American 
party ;  but  it  cannot  be  entitled  to  these  designations 
—  if  they  be  of  any  value  —  for  it  does  not  claim  to 
belong  to  the  organization,  which  first  assumed  and 
still  retains  them.  It  is  an  isolated  combination, 
peculiar  to  Massachusetts,  which,  while  professing 
certain  political  sentiments,  is  bound  together  by  the 
support  of  one  of  the  candidates  for  Governor.  At 
this  moment,  this  is  its  controlling  idea.  It  is,  there- 
fore, a  personal  party,  and  I  trust  that  I  shall  not  be 
considered  as  departing  from  that  courtesy  which  is 
with  me  a  law,  if  I  say  that,  in  the  absence  of  any  ap- 
propriate name,  expressive  of  principles,  it  may  properly 
take  its  designation  from  the  candidate  it  supports. 

Of  course,  such  a  party  wants  the  first  essential  con- 
dition of  the  organization  which  we  seek.  It  is  a 
personal  party,  whose  controlling  idea  is  a  predilection 


THE    REPUBLICAN    PAETY.  549 

for  a  man  and  not  a  principle.  Whatever  may  be  the 
private  sentiments  of  some  of  its  members,  clearly  it  is 
not  a  party  wedded  to  Freedom,  for  better  and  for 
worse,  and  cleaving  to  it  with  a  grasp  never  to  be  un- 
loosed. While  professing  opposition  to  Slavery,  it 
also  arraigns  Catholics  and  foreigners,  and  allows  the 
question  of  their  privileges  to  disturb  its  energies.  It 
is  not  all  in  Freedom ;  nor  is  it,  like  Caesar's  wife, 
above  suspicion.  Besides,  even  as  a  party  of  Freedom, 
it  is  powerless  from  its  isolation ;  for  it  stands  by  itself, 
and  is  in  no  way  associated  with  that  gieat  phalanx 
now  rallying  throughout  the  North.  In  this  condition 
should  it  continue  to  exist,  it  will,  in  the  coming 
Presidential  contest,  from  natural  affinity  lapse  back 
into  the  American  party  of  the  country  which  is  ranged 
on  the  side  of  Slavery.  Of  course,  as  a  separate  party, 
it  is  necessarily  short-lived.  Cut  off  from  the  main 
body,  it  may  still  show  a  brief  vitality,  as  the  head  of 
a  turtle  still  bites  for  some  days  after  it  is  severed 
from  the  neck :  but  it  can  have  no  permanent  exist- 
ence. Surely  this  is  not  the  party  of  Freedom  which 
we  seek. 

But  the  incompetency  of  this  party,  as  the  organ  of 
our  cause,  is  enhanced  by  the  uncongenial  secrecy  in 
which  it  had  its  origin  and  yet  shrouds  itself.  For 
myself,  let  me  say  that,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  I 
have  striven,  by  vote  and  speech,  in  conjunction  with 
my  distinguished  friend  Mr.  CHA.SE,  for  the  limitation 
of  the  secret  sessions  of  that  body,  under  shelter  of 
which  so  much  of  the  business  of  the  nation  is  trans- 
acted, and  I  have  there  presented  the  example  of  that 
ancient  Roman,  —  who  bade  his  architect  so  to  con- 


550    THE  SLATE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS  J 

struct  his  house  that  his  guests  and  all  that  they  did 
might  be  seen  by  the  world,  —  as  a  fit  model  for 
American  institutions.  What  I  have  urged  there,  I 
now  urge  here.  But  the  special  aims  which  this  party 
proposes,  seem  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  darkness  in 
which  it  begins.  Even  if  justifiable,  on  any  grounds 
of  public  policy,  they  should  not  be  associated  with 
our  cause ;  but  I  am  unwilling  to  allude  to  them  with- 
out expressing  my  frank  dissent. 

It  is  proposed  to  attaint  men  for  their  religion  and 
also  for  their  birth.  If  this  object  can  prevail,  vain 
are  the  triumphs  of  Civil  Freedom  in  its  many  hard- 
fought  fields  ;  vain  is  that  religious  toleration  which  we 
all  profess.  The  fires  of  Smithfield,  the  tortures  of 
the  Inquisition,  the  proscriptions  of  non-conformists, 
may  all  be  revived.  It  was  mainly  to  escape  these 
outrages,  dictated  by  a  dominant  religious  sect,  that 
our  country  was  early  settled,  in  one  place  by  Quakers, 
who  set  at  naught  all  forms ;  in  another,  by  Puritans, 
who  disowned  bishops  ;  in  another,  by  Episcopalians, 
who  take  their  name  from  bishops ;  and  in  yet  another, 
by  Catholics,  who  look  to  the  Pope  as  their  Spiritual 
Father.  Slowly  among  the  struggling  sects  was 
evolved  the  great  idea  of  the  Equality  of  all  men  before 
the  law  without  regard  to  religious  belief ;  nor  can  any 
party  now  organize  a  proscription  merely  for  religious 
belief,  without  calling  in  question  this  unquestionable 
principle. 

But  Catholics  are  mostly  foreigners,  and,  on  this 
account,  are  condemned.  Let  us  see  if  there  be  any 
reason  in  this ;  and  here  indulge  me  with  one  word  on 
foreigners. 

With  the  ancient  Greeks,  a  foreigner  was  a  barbarian, 


THE    REPUBLICAN    PARTY.  551 

and  with  the  ancient  Romans,  he  was  an  enemy.  In 
early  modern  times,  the  austerity  of  this  judgment  was 
relaxed ;  but,  under  the  influence  of  feudalism,  the 
different  sovereignties,  whether  provinces  or  nations, 
were  kept  in  a  condition  of  isolation,  from  which  they 
have  been  gradually  passing  until  now,  when  pro- 
vinces are  merged  into  nations,  and  nations  are  giving 
signs  that  they  too  will  yet  commingle  into  one. 
In  our  country  another  example  is  already  displayed. 
From  all  nations  people  commingle  here.  As  in 
ancient  Corinth,  by  the  accidental  fusion  of  all  metals, 
accumulated  in  the  sacred  temples,  a  peculiar  metal 
was  produced,  better  than  any  individual  metal,  even 
silver  or  gold ;  so,  perhaps,  in  the  arrangements  of 
Providence,  by  the  fusion  of  all  races  here,  there  may 
be  a  better  race  than  any  individual  race,  even  Saxon 
or  Celt.  Originally  settled  from  England,  the  Repub- 
lic has  been  strengthened  and  enriched  by  generous 
contributions  of  population  from  Scotland,  Ireland, 
Switzerland,  Sweden,  France  and  Germany ;  and  the 
cry  is  still  they  come.  At  no  time  since  the  discovery 
of  the  New  World,  has  the  army  of  emigrants  pressed 
so  strongly  in  this  direction.  Nearly  half  a  million  are 
annually  landed  on  our  shores.  The  manner  in  which 
they  shall  be  received  is  one  of  the  problems  of  our 
national  policy. 

All  will  admit  that  any  influence  which  they  may 
bring,  hostile  to  our  institutions  —  calculated  to  sub- 
stitute priestcraft  for  religion  and  bigotry  for  Christian- 
ity —  must  be  deprecated  and  opposed.  All  will 
admit,  too,  that  there  must  be  some  assurance  of  their 
purpose  to  become  not  merely  consumers  of  the  fruits 
of  our  soil,  but  useful,  loyal  and  permanent  members 


552    THE  SLAVE  OLIGAKCHY  AND  ITS  USUBPATIONS  ; 

of  our  community,  upholders  of  the  general  welfare. 
With  this  simple  explanation,  I  am  not  disposed  to 
place  any  check  upon  the  welcome  to  foreigners.  There 
are  our  broad  lands,  stretching  towards  the  setting 
sun;  let  them  come  and  take  them.  Ourselves  the 
children  of  the  Pilgrims  of  a  former  generation,  let  us 
not  turn  from  the  Pilgrims  of  the  present.  Let  the 
home,  founded  by  our  emigrant  fathers,  continue  open 
in  its  many  mansions  to  the  emigrants  of  to-day. 

The  history  of  our  country,  in  its  humblest  as  well 
as  most  exalted  spheres,  testifies  to  the  merits  of 
foreigners.  Their  strong  arms  have  helped  furrow  our 
broad  territory  with  canals,  and  stretch  in  every  direc- 
tion the  iron  rail.  They  have  filled  our  workshops, 
navigated  our  ships,  and  even  tilled  our  fields.  Go 
where  you  will,  among  the  hardy  sons  of  toil  on  land 
or  sea,  and  there  you  will  find  industrious  and  faithful 
foreigners  bending  their  muscles  to  the  work.  At  the 
bar  and  in  the  high  places  of  commerce,  you  will  find 
them.  Enter  the  retreats  of  learning,  and  there  you 
will  find  them  too,  shedding  upon  our  country  the 
glory  of  science.  Nor  can  any  reflection  be  cast  upon 
foreigners,  claiming  hospitality  now,  which  will  not 
glance  at  once  upon  the  distinguished  living  and  the 
illustrious  dead  —  upon  the  Irish  Montgomery,  who 
perished  for  us  at  the  gates  of  Quebec  —  upon  Pulaski 
the  Pole,  who  perished  for  us  at  Savannah  —  upon  De 
Kalb  and  Steuben,  the  generous  Germans,  who  aided 
our  weakness  by  their  military  experience  —  upon 
Paul  Jones,  the  Scotchman,  who  lent  his  unsurpassed 
courage  to  the  infant  thunders  of  our  navy  —  also  upon 
those  great  European  liberators,  Kosciusko  of  Poland, 
and  Lafayette  of  France,  each  of  whom  paid  his  earliest 


THE    REPUBLICAN    PABTY.  553 

vows  to  Liberty  in  our  cause.  Nor  should  this  list  be 
confined  to  military  characters,  so  long  as  we  gratefully 
cherish  the  name  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  who  was 
born  in  the  West  Indies,  and  the  name  of  Albert  Gal- 
latin,  who  was  born  in  Switzerland,  and  never,  to  the 
close  of  his  octogenarian  career,  lost  the  French  accent 
of  his  boyhood  —  both  of  whom  rendered  civic  services 
which  may  be  commemorated  among  the  victories  of 
peace. 

Nor  is  the  experience  of  our  Republic  peculiar. 
Where  is  the  country  or  power  which  must  not  in- 
scribe the  names  of  foreigners,  on  its  historic  scroll  ? 
It  was  Christopher  Columbus,  of  Genoa,  who  disclosed 
to  Spain  the  New  World  ;  it  was  Magellan,  of  Portu- 
gal, sailing  in  the  service  of  Spain,  who  first  pressed 
with  adventurous  keel  through  those  distant  Southern 
straits  which  now  bear  his  name,  and  opened  the  way 
to  the  vast  Pacific  sea ;  and  it  was  Cabot,  the  Venetian, 
who  first  conducted  English  enterprise  to  this  North 
American  continent.  As  in  the  triumphs  of  discovery, 
so,  also,  in  other  fields  have  foreigners  excelled,  while 
serving  States  to  which  they  were  bound  by  no  tie  of 
birth.  The  Dutch  Grotius  —  author  of  the  sublime 
work,  "  The  Laws  of  Peace  and  War  "  —  an  exile 
from  his  own  country  —  became  the  Ambassador  of 
Sweden,  and,  in  our  own  day,  the  Italian  Pozzo  di 
Borgo,  turning  his  back  upon  his  own  country,  has 
reached  the  most  exalted  diplomatic  trusts  in  the 
jealous  service  of  Russia.  In  the  list  of  monarchs 
on  the  throne  of  England,  not  one  has  been  more  truly 
English  than  the  Dutch  William.  In  Holland,  no 
ruler  has  equalled  in  renown  the  German  William, 
Prince  of  Orange.  In  Russia,  the  German  Catliar- 
47 


554    THE  SLAVE  OLIGABCHY  AXD  ITS  TTSTJHPATIONS  ; 

ine  II.  takes  a  place  among  the  most  commanding 
sovereigns.  And  who  of  the  Swedish  monarchs  was  a 
better  Swede  than  Bernadotte,  the  Frenchman ;  and 
what  Frenchman  was  ever  filled  with  aspirations  for 
France  more  than  the  Italian  Napoleon  Bonaparte  ? 

But  I  pass  from  these  things,  which  have  occupied 
me  too  long.  A  party,  which,  beginning  in  secrecy, 
interferes  with  religious  belief,  and  founds  a  dis- 
crimination on  the  accident  of  birth,  is  not  the  party 
for  us. 

It  was  the  sentiment  of  that  great  Apostle  of  Free- 
dom, Benjamin  Franklin,  uttered  during  the  trials  of 
the  Revolution,  that,  "  Where  Liberty  is,  there  is  my 
country."  In  similar  strain,  I  would  say,  "  Where 
Liberty  is,  there  is  my  party."  Such  an  organization 
is  now  happily  constituted  here  in  Massachusetts,  and 
in  all  the  Free  States,  under  the  name  of  the  REPUB- 
LICAN PAKTY. 

In  assuming  our  place  as  a  distinct  party,  we  simply 
give  form  and  direction,  in  harmony  with  the  usage 
and  genius  of  popular  governments,  to  a  movement 
which  stirs  the  whole  country,  and  does  not  find  an 
adequate  and  constant  organ  in  either  of  the  other  ex- 
isting parties.  The  early  opposition  to  Slavery  was 
simply  a  sentiment,  out-gushing  from  the  hearts  of  the 
sensitive  and  humane.  In  the  lapse  of  time,  it  became 
a  determined  principle,  inspiring  larger  numbers,  and 
showing  itself  first  in  an  organized  endeavor  to  resist 
the  annexation  of  slaveholding  Texas  ;  next,  to  prohibit 
Slavery  in  newly  acquired  territories  :  and  now,  alarm- 
ed by  the  overthrow  of  all  rights  in  Kansas,  and  the 
domination  of  the  Slave  Oligarchy  throughout  the 


THE    KEPUBUCAN    PAETY.  555 

Republic,  it  breaks  forth  in  a  stronger  effort,  a  wider 
union,  and  a  deeper  channel  inspiring  yet  larger  num- 
bers and  firmer  resolves,  while  opposite  quarters  con- 
tribute to  its  power  —  even  as  the  fountain,  first  out- 
gushing  from  the  weeping  sides  of  its  pure  mountain 
home,  trickles  in  the  rill,  leaps  in  the  torrent,  and  flows 
in  the  river,  till  at  last,  swollen  with  accumulated 
waters,  it  presses  onward,  forever  onward,  in  irresistible 
beneficent  current,  fertilizing  and  uniting  the  spaces 
which  it  traverses,  washing  the  feet  of  cities,  and  woo- 
ing states  to  repose  upon  its  banks. 

Parties  are  the  natural  expression  of  a  strong  public 
sentiment,  which  seeks  vent.  As  old  controversies 
subside,  the  parties  by  Avhich  they  have  been  conducted 
must  yield  to  others  which  represent  the  actual  life  of 
the  times.  In  obedience  to  this  law,  political  parties 
in  France  and  England  —  the  only  countries  where 
these  are  known  —  have  undergone  mutations  with 
time.  In  France,  under  the  royalty  of  Louis  Phillippe, 
the  small  band  of  republicans,  feeble  at  first  in  num- 
bers, and  represented  in  the  Legislature  by  a  few  per- 
sons only,  but  strong  in  principles  and  purpose,  rallied 
together  and  at  length  prevailed  over  the  old  parties, 
until  all  were  equally  subverted  by  Louis  Napoleon, 
and  their  place  supplied  by  the  enforced  unity  of  des- 
potism. In  England,  the  most  brilliant  popular  triumph 
of  her  history  —  the  repeal  of  the  monopoly  of  the 
corn  laws  —  was  finally  carried,  by  means  of  a  newly- 
formed,  but  wide-spread  political  organization,  which 
combined  men  of  all  the  old  parties,  Whigs,  Tories, 
and  Radicals,  and  put  forward  the  single  idea  of  oppo- 
sition to  the  corn  laws,  as  its  end  and  aim.  In  the 
spirit  of  these  examples  the  friends  of  Freedom,  in 


556    THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS  J 

.well  compacted  ranks,  now  unite  to  uphold  their 
cherished  principles,  and  by  combined  efforts,  accord- 
ing to  the  course  of  parties,  to  urge  them  upon  the 
Government  and  the  country. 

Our  party  has  its  origin  in  the  exigencies  of  the 
hour.  Vowing  ourselves  against  Slavery  wherever  it 
exists,  whether  enforced  by  the  Russian  knout,  the 
Turkish  bastinado,  or  the  lash  of  the  Carolina  planter, 
we  do  not  seek  to  interfere  with  it  at  Petersburg, 
Constantinople,  or  Charleston ;  nor  does  any  such  grave 
duty  rest  upon  us.  Our  political  duties  are  properly 
limited  by  our  political  responsibilities  ;  and  we  are 
in  no  just  sense  responsible  for  the  local  law  or  usage 
by  which  human  bondage  in  these  places  is  upheld. 
But  wherever  we  are  responsible  for  the  wrong,  there 
our  duty  begins.  The  object  to  which,  as  a  party,  we 
are  pledged,  is  all  contained  in  the  acceptance  of  the 
issue  which  the  Slave  Oligarchy  tenders.  To  its 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  its  imperious 
demand  that  Kansas  shall  be  surrendered  to  Slavery, 
we  reply,  that  Freedom  shall  be  made  the  universal 
law  of  all  the  national  domain,  without  compromise, 
and  that  hereafter  no  Slave  State  shall  be  admitted 
into  the  Union.  To  its  tyrannical  assumption  of  su- 
premacy in  the  National  Government,  we  reply  that  the 
Slave  Oligarchy  shall  be  overthrown.  Such  is  the 
practical  purpose  of  the  Republican  Party. 

It  is  to  uphold  and  advance  this  cause,  that  we  have 
come  together,  leaving  the  parties  to  which  we  have 
been  respectively  attached.  Now,  in  the  course  of 
human  events,  it  becomes  our  duty  to  dissolve  the 
political  bands  which  bound  us  to  the  old  organiza- 
tions,  and  to  assume  a  separate  existence.  Our  Deela- 


THE    REPUBLICAN    PARTY.  557 

ration  of  Independence  has  been  made.  Let  us,  in 
the  spirit  of  our  Fathers,  pledge  ourselves  to  sustain 
it  with  our  lives,  our  fortunes  and  our  sacred  honor. 
In  thus  associating  and  harmonizing  from  opposite 
quarters,  in  order  to  promote  a  common  cause,  we 
have  learned  to  forget  former  differences,  and  to  appre- 
ciate the  motives  of  each  other.  We  have  learned 
how  trivial  are  the  matters  on  which  we  may  disagree, 
compared  with  the  Great  Issue  on  which  we  all  agree. 
Old  prejudices  have  vanished.  Even  the  rancors  of 
political  antagonism  have  been  changed  and  dissolved, 
as  in  a  potent  alembic,  by  the  natural  irresistible 
affinities  of  Freedom.  In  our  union  we  have  ceased 
to  wear  the  badges  of  either  of  the  old  organizations. 
We  have  become  a  new  party,  distinct,  independent, 
permanent,  under  a  new  name,  with  Liberty  as  our 
watchword,  and  our  flag  inscribed,  "  By  this  sign  con- 
quer." 

Our  object  is  reasonable,  consistent  with  the  Con- 
stitution, and  required  by  just  self-defence.  And  yet 
it  is  assailed  from  opposite  quarters,  and  by  various 
objections. 

It  is  even  objected,  that  the  Republican  Party  is 
actually  injurious  to  the  very  cause  we  seek  to  promote, 
and  this  paradoxical  accusation,  which  might  naturally 
show  itself  among  the  rank  weeds  of  the  South,  is 
cherished  here  on  our  Free  Soil  by  those  who  anxiously 
look  for  any  fig-leaf  with  which  to  cover  their  indiffer- 
ence or  tergiversation.  This  peculiar  form  of  complaint 
is  an  old  device  which  has  been  instinctively  employed 
on  other  occasions,  until  it  has  ceased  to  be  even  plau- 
sible. Thus,  throughout  all  time,  has  every  good  cause 
47* 


558    THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AXD  ITS  TTSTTBPATIOXS  ; 

been  encountered.  Even  Wilberforce,  when  pressing 
the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade,  was  told  that  those 
efforts  by  which  his  name  is  now  consecrated  for  ever- 
more, tended  to  retard  the  cause  he  sought  to  promote, 
even  to  the  extent  of  riveting  anew  the  chains  of  the 
slave  ;  and,  mentioning  this  great  example,  I  may  dis- 
miss the  objection  to  the  contempt  it  deserves. 

With  more  pertinacity  it  is  objected,  that  ours  is  a 
sectional  party,  and  the  significant  words  of  Washing- 
ton are  quoted  to  warn  the  country  against  "  geo- 
graphical "  questions.  This  is  a  mere  bugbear,  with 
which  to  disturb  timid  nerves.  It  is  a  part  of  the 
intolerable  usurpation  of  the  Slave  Oligarchy,  that  the 
sectional  institution  of  Slavery  is  exalted  to  be  national 
in.  its  character,  so  that  a  National  Whig  is  simply  a 
Slavery  Whig,  and  a  National  Democrat  is  simply  a 
Slavery  Democrat.  According  to  the  true  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  Freedom  and  not  Slavery  is 
national,  while  Slavery  and  not  Freedom  is  sectional. 
Now,  if  the  Republican  party  proposed  any  measures 
calculated  to  operate  exclusively  upon  any  "  geograph- 
ical "  section,  or  if  it  sought  to  direct  the  powers  of 
Congress  upon  Slavery  in  the  States,  then,  perhaps,  it 
might  be  obnoxious  to  this  charge ;  but  as  it  simply 
acts  against  Slavery  under  the  National  jurisdiction, 
and  seeks  to  dislodge  the  Slave  Oligarchy  from  their 
usurped  control  of  the  National  Government,  it  is 
absurd  to  say  that  it  is  sectional.  Our  aim  is  in  no 
respect  sectional,  but  in  every  respect  national.  It  is 
in  no  respect  against  the  South,  but  against  the  Evil 
Spirit  at  the  South,  which  has  perverted  our  national 
politics.  As  well  might  it  be  said  that  Washington, 
and  Jefferson  and  Franklin  were  sectional  and  against 


THE    REPUBLICAN    PARTY.  559 

the  South.  To  all  who  are  really  against  sectionalism. 
I  would  say,  what  sectionalism  so  direful  as  that  of 
Slavery  ?  To  all  who  profess  to  be  against  isms,  I 
would  say,  what  ism  so  wretched  as  the  ism  of  Slavery  ? 
If  you  are  in  earnest,  join  the  National  party  of  Free- 
dom. 

Again,  it  is  objected  that  the  Republican  party  is 
against  the  Union,  and  we  are  reminded  of  the  priceless 
blessings  which  come  from  this  fountain.  Here  is 
another  bugbear.  With  us  the  Union  is  not  the  object 
of  mere  lip  service,  but  it  is  cherished  in  simple  sin- 
cerity, as  the  aged  Lear  was  loved  by  his  only  faithful 
daughter,  "  according  to  her  bond,  nor  more  nor  less." 
Our  party  does  nothing  against  the  Union,  but  every- 
thing for  it.  It  strives  to  guard  those  great  principles 
which  the  Union  was  established  to  secure,  and  thus 
to  keep  it  ever  worthy  of  our  love.  It  seeks  to  over- 
throw that  baleful  Oligarchy,  under  which  the  Union 
has  been  changed  from  a  vessel  of  honor  to  a  vessel  of 
dishonor.  In  this  patriot  work  it  will  persevere,  re- 
gardless of  menace  from  any  quarter.  Not  that  I  love 
the  Union  less  bxit  Freedom  more,  do  I  now,  in  plead- 
ing tliis  great  cause,  insist  that  Freedom,  at  all  hazards, 
shall  be  preserved.  God  forbid,  that  for  the  sake  of 
the  Union,  we  should  sacrifice  the  very  things  for  which 
the  Union  was  made. 

And  yet  again,  it  is  objected  that  ours  is  a  party  of 
a  single  idea.  This  is  a  phrase,  and  nothing  more. 
The  party  may  not  recognize  certain  measures  of  pub- 
lic policy,  deemed  by  some  of  special  importance  ;  but 
it  does  what  is  better,  and  what  other  parties  fail  to 
do.  It  acknowledges  that  beneficent  principle,  which, 
like  the  great  central  light,  vivifies  all,  and  without 


560    THE  SLAVE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS  ', 

which  all  is  dark  and  sterile.  The  moving  cause  and 
the  animating  soul  of  our  party,  is  the  idea  of  Freedom. 
But  this  idea  is  manifold  in  character  and  influence. 
It  is  the  idea  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  It 
is  the  great  idea  of  the  founders  of  the  Republic.  It 
is  the  idea  which  combined  our  Fathers  on  the  heights 
of  Bunker  Hill ;  which  carried  Washington  through  a 
seven  years'  war ;  which  inspired  Lafayette  ;  which 
touched  with  coals  of  fire  the  lips  of  Adams,  Otis,  and 
Patrick  Henry.  Ours  is  an  idea,  which  is  at  least 
noble  and  elevating  ;  it  is  an  idea  which  draws  in  its 
train  virtue,  goodness  and  all  the  charities  of  life,  all 
that  makes  earth  a  home  of  improvement  and  happi- 
ness — 

"  Her  track,  •where'er  the  goddess  roves, 
Glory  pursues,  and  generous  shame, 
The  unconquerable  mind  and  Freedom's  holy  flame." 

Thus  do  all  objections  disappear,  even  as  the  mists 
of  morning  before  the  sun,  rejoicing  like  a  strong  man 
to  run  his  race.  The  Republican  party  stands  vindi- 
cated in  every  particular.  It  only  remains  that  I 
should  press  the  question  with  which  I  begun  —  "  Are 
you  for  Freedom,  or  are  you  for  Slavery  ?  "  As  it  is 
right  to  be  taught  by  the  enemy,  let  us  derive  instruction 
from  the  Oligarchy  we  oppose.  The  three  hundred  and 
forty-seven  thousand  slave  masters  are  always  united. 
Hence  their  strength.  Like  arrows  in  a  quiver,  they 
cannot  be  broken.  The  friends  of  Freedom  have  thus 
far  bsen  divided.  They,  too,  must  be  united.  In  the 
crisis  before  us,  it  becomes  you  all  to  forget  ancient 
feuds,  and  thoso  namss  which  have  boon  the  signal  of 
strife.  There  is  no  occasion  to  remember  anything  but 
our  duties.  When  the  fire-bell  rings  at  midnight,  we  do 


THE    REPUBLICAN    PARTY.  561 

not  ask  if  it  be  Whigs  or  Democrats,  Protestants  or 
Catholics,  natives  or  foreigners,  who  join  our  efforts 
to  extinguish  the  flames  ;  nor  do  we  ask  any  such  ques- 
tion in  selecting  our  leader  then.  Men  of  all  parties, 
Whigs  and  Democrats,  or  however  named,  let  me  call 
upon  you  to  come  forward  and  join  in  a  common  cause. 
Do  not  hesitate.  When  Freedom  is  in  danger,  all 
who  are  not  for  her  are  against  her.  The  penalty  of 
indifference,  in  such  a  cause,  is  akin  to  the  penalty  of 
opposition ;  as  is  well  pictured  by  the  great  Italian 
poet,  when,  among  the  saddest  on  the  banks  of  Acheron 
—  rending  the  air  with  outcries  of  torment,  shrieks  of 
anger  and  smiting  of  hands  —  he  finds  the  troop  of 
dreary  souls  who  had  been  ciphers  only  in  the  great 
conflicts  of  life  : 

"  Mingled  with  whom,  of  their  disgrace  the  proof, 
Are  the  vile  angels,  who  did  not  rebel, 
Nor  kept  their  faith  to  God,  but  stood  aloof." 

Come  forth,  then,  from  the  old  organizations ;  let  us 
range  together.  Come  forth,  all  who  have  stood  aloof 
from  parties  ;  here  is  an  opportunity  for  action.  You 
who  place  principles  above  men  !  come  forward.  All 
who  feel  in  any  way  the  wrong  of  Slavery,  take  your 
stand  !  Join  us,  ye  lovers  of  Truth,  of  Justice,  of 
Humanity  !  And  let  me  call  especially  upon  the  young. 
You  are  the  natural  guardians  of  Liberty.  In  your 
firm  resolves  and  generous  souls  she  will  find  her 
surest  protection.  The  young  man  who  is  not  willing 
to  serve  in  her  cause  —  to  suffer,  if  need  be,  for  her  — 
gives  little  promise  of  those  qualities  which  secure  an 
honorable  age. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS:  We  found  now  a  new  party. 


562    THE  SLATE  OLIGARCHY  AND  ITS  USURPATIONS. 

Its  corner-stone  is  Freedom.  Its  broad,  all-sustaining 
arches  are  Truth,  Justice,  and  Humanity.  Like  the 
ancient  Roman  Capitol,  at  once  a  Temple  and  a  Citadel, 
it  shall  be  the  fit  shrine  for  the  genius  of  American 
Institutions. 


THE  L 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 

I 





£.    JUN20  1973 


A 


NOV29197( 


1R1J 
&.    & 


-Series  444 


.i  FORNIA 

LOS  AJMc 


